Marriage and emotivism

"A friend who supports the decision says polygamy isn't at issue, because, 'We've always thought marriage is something between two people.'"

Loud, derisive laughter. The whole weight of contemporary secular thought is directed to the destruction of anything based on "we've always thought...", "everybody knows...", "no one in his right mind would...", etc.

Allowing polygamous marriage radically defines the legal structure of marriage law, family law, property law, and inheritance law and would require a complete upheaval of the legal frameworks.

Same-sex marriage involves changing the words "husband" and "wife" to "spouse." A single sentence can update an entire state's laws. Adding multiple spouses would require decades of legal reform.

And they use the term 'gay marriage' or 'same sex marriage' to explain the change. The same way that 'interracial marriage' was used to explain the change when that expansion was made. Indeed, they went to the effort to create a whole new word that meant marriage between people of different races. Miscegenation. They didn't even do that for gay people.

That didn't make interracial marriage anything different from any other marriage and, now that its legal, and been legal, its just called 'marriage' now, for most people. (There's still people out there very MUCH against it.)

Now, far as I'm concerned, if ALL the particulars are identical, they can call it 'tomato soup'. It'll be called 'marriage' by most within a few years anyway, and it'll BE marriage within a few years more.

And I've never yet figured out why, on the scale of 'badness', polygamy is viewed as lower on the scale than gay marriage..

Oh no, not 'gay marriage'. It might lead to POLYGAMY.

Though it would, as noted above, take a lot more wrangling to figure out the particulars, there's already plenty of countries where polygamy was always legal, and tons of history behind it.

"Adding multiple spouses would require decades of legal reform"

Why? In Canada there are now "families" with multiple parents (2 moms and 1 dad, etc.) This did not take "decades of legal reform." Just one or maybe a few judges... Now, maybe if we were being democratic about it, we would be waiting a while...

Marriage is a rite of the church....like communion or baptism. Civil unions are a social/political construct for determining the distribution of property. Granted, historically, they've been the same in the western world. Perhaps our error was made long ago, when it was decided that the county court house would recognize marriages performed by ordained ministers as also binding in the civil relm. I am all in favor of "divorcing" the two. Marriage is and should remain an activity of the church that government cannot/should not interfere with or attempt to define. (Of course denominations and religions will differ on who they can marry....fine, that's between them and God.) Civil unions should be done at the court house. Yeah, it might mean more paperwork when you go over to the court house, or even another ceremony entirely. But my fear is that ultimately government will be telling pastors that they cannot discriminate against couples on the basis of the gender preferences. Lets separate the church and state.

"That's radically different from polgyamy and its implications."

I agree that it is different in fact. But would it really be "radically different" in terms of how the change took place? If so, how... The judges in MA just told the legislature to submit a proper bill by a certain date, sort of like assigning a term paper. Why not for polygamy? Was it all that hard to codify it as illegal in the first place?

There is, of course, no logically coherent basis on which the judiciary can discover a right to gay marriage without also ackowledging a right to polygamy. Rick Santorum was precisely right about that.

But we supposedly live in a democratic republic, where the people and legislators are free to make arbitrary distictions. By statute, we can permit gay marriage and still ban polygamy or incestuous relationships. There is no requirement that laws passed in a free republic be philosophically coherent -- and, in fact, in a democratic society they never will be.

But just as with the abortion and nebulous "right to privacy" judicial mischief of the past generation, the great crime here is the usurpation of the issue by the Courts. Courts aren't allowed to make arbitrary distictions, and they have to dress up even their most blatantly legislative acts in the language of rights.

That has consequences, many unforeseeable, many serious, and mostly very bad.

Rod, how come a crunchy con blog like this isn't addressing contraception? There's been much talk of marriage's natural meaning as opposed to its current (what you call emotivist) meaning. Shouldn't the host of a crunchy blog like this be addressing that which makes marriage natural? I mean, if I'm going to get a clear diagnosis of the problem of gay marriage anywhere, I'd imagine I'd get it here...but I haven't seen it yet. There's much talk of the 'traditional' marriage. Right! But just because you happen to be in a heterosexual union doesn't make it the case that your marriage is 'traditional' in the sense you are looking for. Contracepting couples--married or not--are as unnatural as gay couples. It is hypocritical at best and bigoted at worst for contracepting hetero couples to oppose gay marriage. Again I ask: isn't this a crunchy blog? :) A crunchy con has an excellent diagnosis of the current gay marriage issue....so let's hear it, Rod! :)

Oh no, not 'gay marriage'. It might lead to POLYGAMY.
Posted by: Karen Brown | May 22, 2008 11:19 AM

and that might lead to DANCING!

"can't be changed with a one-sentence change to the law"

Neither was same-sex marriage. The whole code had to be revised. Not sure why you believe this is so difficult, but whatever...

The point Rod is making (I think) is that marriage essentially becomes meaningless if it can mean whatever we like.

2 people

6 people

People and Sheep

Robots and Children

Who cares, as long as we're having fun and no one's feelings get hurt, right?

If it is morally correct to allow three or more people to marry if they are so inclined, then why should any amount of legal inconvenience matter?

Because the question facing the court would be whether there is a government justification for limiting it to two-person marriages. The chaos it would create for the legal system is a justification that would survive pretty much any level of scrutiny.

It's not a matter of inconvenience, but upheaval. It is also not clear that the morality of the relationship is limited to what is in the Bible or Koran, but instead on the morality of such a relationship on children and those involved in the relationships (the consensual nature of the relationship).

As I've said before, if there is going to be a push for polygamy, it is going to be come from the far religious right and those who read religious texts literally. The movement isn't going to be based in San Francisco or Boston, but instead Dallas and Salt Lake City and suburban Detroit and Brooklyn.

As a traditionalist Christian, I'm finding that I really don't care anymore about gay marriage or whether it leads inevitably to polygamy. As a lawyer, I can't see how the California Supreme Court can plausibly draw the line where it has - insisting that polygamy is just different from same-sex marriage is no less arbitrary than the line it struck down. (Note that I'm not making the argument that gay marriage inevitably leads to polygamy. If enacted by the legislature, which should not in these matters have to explain why it is drawing the line in a particular place, same sex marriage does not inevitably lead to any further expansion of the scope of marriage; but courts must give reasons for the lines that they draw, and the line that the court has drawn here is utterly arbitrary.)

It seems to me that perhaps the wiser course for Christians to take would be to lend our weight to insisting that all limitations on the scope of civil marriage are arbitrary, forcing the courts (at least in Cali and Mass) to follow their reasoning as far as it will take them. Each new expansion of the scope of marriage would only serve to highlight the difference between Holy Matrimony and civil marriage, and it seems to me that the former can only benefit from such a divorce. For too long, the identification of the two has resulted in confusion in the minds of believers, allowing too many of them (particularly evangelicals and fundamentalists) to import the standards of civil marriage (and divorce) into their own marriages, even if they were solemnized in the church. The church, rather than serving as the agent of the state in solemnizing civil marriages, should have been making the distinction between civil marriage and Holy matrimony long ago - e.g., when the divorce laws were first liberalized. The further the scope of civil marriage deviates from that of Holy Matrimony, the more likely it is that the churches will insist on distinguishing Christian marriage from the civil variety.

I have previously thought that it might be worthwhile to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, but voters are unlikely to approve. Why not take the alternative route, and get churches out of the business of solemnizing civil marriages? Church members would be free to get married before a justice of the piece for tax and legal purposes but such marriages would not be recognized by the church as valid; a civilly married couple would be treated by the church as cohabiting (and thus, e.g., ineligible for communion) until they were united in a religious rite. Given our religiously fluid society, there would have to be an ecumenical aspect to this across denominations/churches (of course the liberal churches would never go along with it), but many churches do already recognize each other's baptisms, so it should be a relatively small step to extend recognition to each other's matrimonial rights. Thoughts?

"This is the type of stuff that Rod does not delete! someone hoping for
incestuous marriages!"

whats wrong with that I love my sister

Rod writes: "I have not seen a satisfactory answer as to why, based on the court's finding that individual autonomy is the basis for extending full marriage rights to same-sex couples, polygamous marriages can be forbidden. Those who argue that gay marriage is a right -- which is something inalienable, that cannot be regulated by the law -- will find before too long that they have no firm moral grounds for rejecting polygamist claims."

Absolutely!! Upholding this decision by 4 justices on this California court will open the lid of Pandora's box to all manner of bizarre things emerging. Bigamy and polygamy would only the beginning. You'd have adult-minor relaztionships involving different genders eventually getting the stamp of approval(e.g., Mary Kay Letourneay and her 8th grade lover); adult-minor couplings of the same gender (see, for example, NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association); polyamorous relationships (e.g., menage a trois).

What about relationships involving man and beast? Seem far-fetched, but witness today's headline from across the Atlantic: "European Court agrees to hear chimp's plea for human rights." The 26-year old chimp's name is "Matthew." His supporters are taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights. Animal rights activist Paula Stibbe, a British teacher, is fighting to have "Matthew" legally declared a "person" so she can be appointed as his guardian. We can be certain that in dear Paula's mind her feelings for "Matthew" are authentic and reciprocated. Given where our concept of "marriage" is headed in the wake of the California court decision, who could deny Paula's and "Matthew"'s claim to the bliss of "marriage" ?

Dear Lord, where will all this lead? We must oppose this insanity.

Richard opined: Each new expansion of the scope of marriage would only serve to highlight the difference between Holy Matrimony and civil marriage, and it seems to me that the former can only benefit from such a divorce.

[Standing ovation!!!!] Well said, Richard. Very well said.

Daniel: Because the question facing the court would be whether there is a government justification for limiting it to two-person marriages. The chaos it would create for the legal system is a justification that would survive pretty much any level of scrutiny.

[sarcastic] Some of us believe that an increase in chaos in certain segments of litigation -- if it acts as a dampening effect -- would be a Very Good Thing. If it becomes too expensive for the lawyers, they might be convinced to stop their marketing campaigns... [/sarcasm]

Daniel, seriously, when has there ever been a rational discussion concerning new or changed legislation that concluded with "we really can't do this, it would make citizens' lives too complicated..."? I am not a lawyer, but I did spend 14 years dealing with ERISA and numerous addenda and changes to qualified pensions laws. I and my clients would have fainted with relief if one or more of those addenda had been cancelled. In 1989 I spent several months terminating a few dozen pension plans because they were about to become illegal in their present forms; a few months after the last one was submitted, Congress repealed the law that made them illegal. I had already embarked on my next career at that point. My near-hysterical laughter at the irony lasted several days.

Is there a divorce lawyer in the house? Other than adding a third or more adult parties, would plural marriage have that much of an impact on joint property and custody laws?

Aileen: "After Christ came, marriage was more clearly seen as a type of Christ's relationship with his Church. Thus the importance of Christian monogamy is clear but would be irrelevant to non-Christians. So the State would want to outlaw polygamy on the grounds that society is less stable when it is allowed. I wonder if this is clearly the case. As another reader pointed out, some cultures do find it workable."

And yet Christ himself used a parable of ten virgins to describe how the church would wait for the coming of the Lord.

Matthew 25:1-13

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
And five of them were wise, and five were foolish
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Note the model...ten virgins ready to meet the bridegroom. Five were accepted because they were prepared. If your assertion is accurate, the bridegroom should only have accepted one.

As for your assertion that society is less stable when polygamy is allow, on what do you base this?

And check out this book by Singer...

"The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity"

A compelling and revolutionary work that calls for the immediate extension of our human rights to the great apes.The Great Ape Project looks forward to a new stage in the development of the community of equals, whereby the great apes-chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans-will actually receive many of the same protections and rights that are already accorded to humans.This profound collection of thirty-one essays by the world's most distinguished observers of free-living apes make up a uniquely satisfying whole, blending observation and interpretation in a highly persuasive case for a complete reassessment of the moral status of our closest kin.

"Absolutely!! Upholding this decision by 4 justices on this California court will open the lid of Pandora's box to all manner of bizarre things emerging. Bigamy and polygamy would only the beginning. You'd have adult-minor relaztionships involving different genders eventually getting the stamp of approval(e.g., Mary Kay Letourneay and her 8th grade lover); adult-minor couplings of the same gender (see, for example, NAMBLA, North American Man-Boy Love Association); polyamorous relationships (e.g., menage a trois)."

First, it's Letourneau. And strangely, whenever the conservatives drag her name into the conversation, they never condemn her father's sexual abuse of her. Why is that?

And as far as adult-minor relationships in the heterosexual world, I assume that Reaganite is lobbying for states to raise the age-of-consent for marriage to age 18 in all the states. Such as Alabama, which permits 14 year olds to marry with parental consent. Or Michigan and Minnesota, which have the same rules for 15 year olds. And even in your own state of New York, 14 year olds can marry with the written consent of parents.

Tell me, Reaganite...does the issue of the marriage of minors trouble you at any other time than when same-sex marriage is brought up?

"A woman married a dolphin a year or so ago, I think in Israel."

Gee...if that is an indictment of same-sex marriage, then should we consider Britney Spears, Madonna, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Elizabeth Taylor indictments of heterosexual, "traditional" marriage?

By the way, the dolphin was male, Jeannette. Wouldn't that make it heterosexual?

"Gee...if that is an indictment of same-sex marriage, then should we consider Britney Spears, Madonna, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Elizabeth Taylor indictments of heterosexual, "traditional" marriage?"

Nope, but they are great examples of getting marriage wrong.

"By the way, the dolphin was male, Jeannette. Wouldn't that make it heterosexual?"

So, you DO consider it a legit marriage? Interesting.

quote: "Because the question facing the court would be whether there is a government justification for limiting it to two-person marriages. The chaos it would create for the legal system is a justification that would survive pretty much any level of scrutiny. It's not a matter of inconvenience, but upheaval."

If we are going to abandon the traditional one women, one man definition of marriage, there simply is no logical reason to ban polygamy or any other form of marriage involving consenting adults, including incestuous marriage. It would be hypocritical and discriminatory to do so. I suspect that those on the left who support gay marriage but oppose polygamy do so because of 1) their desire to impose their feminist morality which views polygamy as misogynistic on the rest of society 2) because above all they want to use "gay marriage" to advance a certain agenda with respect to feminism and the sexual revolution, and polygamy simply doesn't fit in very well with said agenda.
But back to the topic of polygamy. I fail to see how polygamy would cause any upheaval in society or the justice system. In the first place, the vast majority of women and many men aren't interested in polygamy, or to be blunt in the case of men can't afford it. The only people attracted to polygamy in this country would be 1) A few minority religious groups such as Muslims and FLDS 2) Wealthy playboys 3) A small group of people who are interested in alternative lifestyles/family arrangements.
Since only a small number of people (probably less than 1%) would seek to enter into a polygamous marriage, the arguments that polygamy would cause a shortage of women or cause chaos in the justice system are bogus. Plus, it's not as if a good lawyer couldn't come up with a marriage contract for three or four people. It's not any different from a business partnership with four partners instead of two. Would it be more complicated? Sure, but that's the problem of those involved, not the rest of society. And the fact that it is more complicated in a variety of ways-sexually, emotionally, logistically, and financially would strongly inhibit polygamy from being an attractive arrangement for the vast majority people. It simply wouldn't become anything near mainstream, though even if it did it arguably isn't anyone's business since we can't tell consenting (and loving) adults what to do in the bedroom and with their private contracts, nor can we tell them their relationship isn't "valid."
In short, if the state issues marriage licenses or civil contracts or whatever one wants to call them on the basis of "consenting adults" it would be discrimination not to allow polygamy. If the fourteenth amendment or whatever other legal justifications given mean "gay marriage," they must also mean polygamy as well. So the question comes down to this: is changing the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one women and one man about "equality" or is something else afoot here? Ones view on polygamy (and incest as well) tells a lot about ones real intentions with this question.

rr

Funny column on the dolphin story:

http://www.wbrucecameron.com/columns/archive/woman_marries_dolphin.htm

...

Naturally, this event has caused a considerable furor among socially conservative dolphins. “I’m not homo-sapiens-phobic, but marriage is supposed to be between a man porpoise and a woman porpoise. This human babe can’t even breathe through the top of her head,” snorted a spokes-mammal for the aquatic species. More liberal dolphins claim that what a husband and wife do underwater is their own business.

...

A spokesperson for the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, when asked to comment about the marriage between Sharon and Cindy, said “Right, we so have time to worry about stuff like this.”

"By the way, the dolphin was male, Jeannette. Wouldn't that make it heterosexual?"

Max: So, you DO consider it a legit marriage? Interesting.

Why else would Jeannette have mentioned it, Max?

(Sorry for the 2nd posting...forgot name and e-mail)

More info on the dolphin story - seems it ended tragically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_the_Dolphin

Though the media painted a more romantic picture of the event, Tendler herself admitted that the marriage had no legal standing[4] and that the ceremony was, in her own words, "a bit of fun" after her friends joked about her being single at the age of 41.[5]

The marriage was non-exclusive. Cindy was the father of all of the dolphins born in the area,[6] and Tendler kept open the option of "marrying human", but was strictly a "one dolphin woman".[4] As Cindy is normally a woman's name, it has been mistakenly stated that the marriage was a same-sex marriage.[7] After three weeks of poor health, Cindy died on June 18, 2006, less than a year after the marriage. He was buried at sea. [6]

"Why else would Jeannette have mentioned it, Max?"

Ah...to show that mentioning bestiality in this discussion is a legitimate point and need not be considered inflammatory?

Here we go again.

"We can end civil marriage now, or we can wait until it collapses under the weight of societal insanities like the ones I'm describing. But saying that these things won't be the consequence of redefining marriage in the first place is extremely naive."

That's putting it charitably.

"So you are saying that our culture is less resilient than the culture in which King David lived?"

Absolutely, because in King David's culture people weren't obsessively focused on making sure that absolutely everything in life was "fair."

RJohnson: "So you are saying that our culture is less resilient than the culture in which King David lived?"

Erin: Absolutely, because in King David's culture people weren't obsessively focused on making sure that absolutely everything in life was "fair."

They also allowed polygamy, so apparently that does not have an influence on whether or not a culture is resilient.

Absolutely, because in King David's culture people weren't obsessively focused on making sure that absolutely everything in life was "fair."

Of course, in King David's culture, women and children were treated like property and told they have no voice. The idea that things in life should be "fair" is what allows you--as a woman--to have access to a computer and make choices about your life. The idea that things should be "fair" is what makes it possible for people to have discourse and free speech and not be locked up because of their religious beliefs.

I realize fairness is a burden on your values, but justice is one of the goals of our legal system and fairness is one of the underlying motives.

Rod: "Which churches deny communion to the shacking-up? Seriously. I know they're supposed to (at least Catholic and Orthodox are), but do they?"

Just curious...is it still the practice in the Catholic church that an annulment can be had if a sufficiently large donation is made? A friend of mine who was Catholic divorced his wife some 15 years ago, and was told by his local priest that an annulment could be granted if he would "donate" $500 to the church. He left the church and thankfully did not level the priest in doing so.

I've heard others make similar claims, and was wondering if this is common practice or if this is at variance with the rules?

Eleanor,

"Marriage is a rite of the church."

Well, religious marriage is. And I ought to know. My (same-sex) marriage took place in my Church. Didn't even need a marriage licence - the publication of the Banns was sufficient to satisfy the State.

Civil marriage is very much a rite of the State.

"Civil unions are a social/political construct for determining the distribution of property."

Except, of course, society had to invent the term "civil union" to placate them darned gays who wanted to 'steal' the term "marriage" from the hets. Theretofore, the term had always been "civil marrriage" and it is with civil marriages that the California Court decision deals.

"Marriage is and should remain an activity of the church that government cannot/should not interfere with or attempt to define."

Nor has it. Those faiths not wishing to marry same-sex couples are, and will remain, free not to do so.

"(Of course denominations and religions will differ on who they can marry....fine, that's between them and God.)"

Agreed, but try telling that to the 'fundies'.

"But my fear is that ultimately government will be telling pastors that they cannot discriminate against couples on the basis of the gender preferences."

Your fear is, as I've said repeatedly, is quite unfounded, and shall remain so until the Roman Catholic Church is 'told' they cannot discriminate against divorced people.

" Lets separate the church and state."

Yeah, let's. But again, try getting that through the heads of the "Donnies" of this world.

RJohnson, that sounds like a typical anti-Catholic story that I've heard in the Protestant South before; if your friend really heard someone say that I'm afraid he must have misunderstood.

In the first place, the priest doesn't grant the annulment. The case for the annulment must be presented to a diocesan tribunal, which will examine the claim that the marriage was or wasn't valid. A canon lawyer is usually hired to present the evidence to the tribunal, and the fees involved might be about the sum your friend heard, but that will vary as far as I know (any canon lawyers out there want to weigh in?).

Since the tribunal is generally made up of quite a few people I'm afraid a $500 "bribe" would be a very insufficient sum; and if the annulment were granted under any sort of shady circumstances it could be overturned at a higher level, so it really wouldn't do any good to start talking about slipping Father any donations--especially since he doesn't control the tribunal's decision in the least.

Non-Catholics often misunderstand the annulment process, which is not at all "Catholic divorce." It is a statement by the Church that the marriage was never valid to begin with, that the sacramental union did not take place.

Which churches deny communion to the shacking-up? Seriously. I know they're supposed to (at least Catholic and Orthodox are), but do they?

I met a person on b-net who is a friend and married to a Catholic. He's Jewish. They were married in a civil ceremony. She doesn't receive the Eucharist in her church. Maybe the Catholics think what she did is worse than shacking up. I couldn't tell you, but I know that she goes to church week after week and doesn't receive Communion.

Rod,

"when a court declares that marriage is not what everybody had heretofore thought it was, but actually has a radically different meaning under law..."

Heretofore, in America, everybody always accepted that marriage was the union of 2 persons. That has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that the 2 persons need no longer be of the opposite sex. It's about as "radically different" as when the courts decided that they no longer had to be of the same race. IOW, most people do not see this as all that "radical".

In fact, you, yourself, ad mit as much when you say, "Though the California court is getting out ahead of the public to a certain degree, it is undeniable [emphasis mine] that those justices are simply acknowledging a moral understanding that the public already generally accepts.

"the only possible moral ... justification for denying marriage itself to same-sex couples is the belief that their union is in some sense inferior."

Odd, but I rarely get the feeling here that people hink my "union" is inferior, but rather that I, as a human being, am.

"Most people, even, I'd say, most who believe that same-sex unions are inferior, cannot offer a reason or reasons for that conclusion"

We've been asking for such a reason (or reasons) for as long as we've been posting here. And you're correct - they cannot. Or at least, they have not. The procreation argument never cut the mustard because both the State and religious faiths allow non-procreative heterosexuals to marry.

"It's just wrong, that's all," is no longer persuasive."

It never really was, Rod. It never really was.

"Non-Catholics often misunderstand the annulment process, which is not at all "Catholic divorce." It is a statement by the Church that the marriage was never valid to begin with, that the sacramental union did not take place."

This non-Catholic sure as heck doesn't understand it, that's for sure. The former Mayor of Toronto had his marriage of 18+ years annulled (so that he could subsequently marry his secretary with whomo he had been having an affair). Likewise an east-end Toronto Member of Parliament (a virulently anti-gay man, btw) had his 20+ years marriage annulled, ditto so he could marry anew the (how to delicately put it) somewhat younger woman he'd been canoodling.

Now, how any reasonable person or tribunal could decide these marriages had not taken place seems more than passing strange.

And what any of this has to do with polygamy - the topic of this thread -is beyon ...

What's that? Polygamy isn't the topic of this thread?

Oh, pardon me. Carry on...

;{O)

They never condemn her father's sexual abuse of her.

- I'm sure they don't condone it. But adults are resp. for their actions - and she was an adult.

Which churches deny communion to the shacking-up?

- I don't know many where this would be praticable (How is the priest to know?) But I think it is pretty common for marriage to be denied to the shacking-up. (Sounds crazy, I know.)

Are we talking about changing the definition of marriage to remove the word "consenting" from the equation?

- I think the point of the post is that cultures have done all sorts of things in the past. Based on the will-to-power understanding of marriage, it can be whatever we say it is. It's all up to society to decide. No option is better or worse than the other. We get that. We just don't agree.

Simon says,

"There is, of course, no logically coherent basis on which the judiciary can discover a right to gay marriage without also ackowledging a right to polygamy."

The CA Supreme Court did no such thing. The "right" to marry already existed. What the Court did was to ensure the law is equally applied to all citizens.

I don't understand why people think that legalizing gay marriage is more likely to lead to polygamy than is heterosexual marriage.

Because it's being done by the COURTS, which have no authority to legalize anything except by appeal to abstract principles that are generally applicable to other situations.

A legislative enactment of gay marriage would have no practical implications on polygamy or anything else. Of course, advocates of same sex marriage have yet to demonstrate much ability to prevail via the democratic process. Thus, their resort to the courts.

And when the judiciary justifies its legislative acts with extra-constitutional rubbish like "every generation has the right to define its own concept of freedom" such declarations of "law" apply to subsequent cases, involving very different facts.

A court can claim to allow gay marriage and oppose polygamy (or like the Supreme Court, it can assert a constitutional right to sodomy while refraining from finding a right to gay marriage), but those distinctions are meaningless if the reasoning behind their decision leads logically to the thing they claim to refrain from holding.

This is why the Founders never imagined, and wouldn't have tolerated, courts exercising the vast powers they have usurped over the past 50 years. Courts are incapable of making the kinds of frankly arbitrary policy distinctions that legislatures make all the time. And thus judicial fiat is ultimately incompatible with democratic self-government.

quote: "Which churches deny communion to the shacking-up? Seriously. I know they're supposed to (at least Catholic and Orthodox are), but do they?"

I've been to an Orthodox church before where the priest specifically said before administering communion that those who were shacking-up needed to repent, and if they were currently doing so ought not to come up for communion. I doubt he says this every Sunday, but denying communion for this reason does occur.

rr

I asked the question on another blog about the lack of prosecutions for polygamy. I received a number of responses saying that there was no law against people living in any number of non-legal relationships as long as they didn't try to legally get married. So, in a sense, polygamy is legal according to some people. As to the question as to what's to stop it being legal, the answer is nothing. If enough people want it to be legal, I guess it will eventually be legal. But it is certainly possible that religious and even contractual arguments could keep polygamy illegal. That could be seen to be arbitrary, but maybe not. That's why I don't think it foolish to raise objections on these grounds to Gay Marriage. It could help draw a line that we won't cross as a society. Legally, laws would have to be passed in California in order for polygamy to be legal. On the other hand, when you ask the question could a court make a ruling that many of us consider foolish, I believe that the question answers itself.

"Because it's being done by the COURTS, which have no authority to legalize anything except by appeal to abstract principles that are generally applicable to other situations."

Did the courts overstep their bounds in Brown v. Board of Education, or Virginia v. Loving?

Of course, in the California case, the legislature had already passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. The governor chose to wait for the courts to speak on the matter. And, since I am sure that you would not want the federal court interfering in a matter where a state had acted regarding its own laws, I suspect you will be supporting California's new marriage statutes.

After all, the legislature had agreed on it, the courts agreed on it, and the governor agreed to support both of them. Isn't that how our system is supposed to work?

All you Bible-believing folks, where in the Bible is polygamy condemned? I cannot find so much as a verse in the Hebrew Scriptures (wherein all the heroes of God had multiple wives) where this practice is questioned, let alone condemned.

"If we are going to abandon the traditional one women, one man definition of marriage"

And therein lies a very faulty premise. We aren't "abandoning" 1man/1woman marriages. They still are taking place - by the scores. Daily! And those of you who believe that's the way it should be are still entirely free to have them. My marriage does not prevent them from happening.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to pass off the same lie to the Canadian public ("the Liberals have ended traditional marriage"), and the public saw it for what it was - patent nonsense.

Good for you, recovering, I didn't know you were married. (Belated) congratulations.

My best friend and her partner are cooking up a wedding ceremony here in California as we speak. I told Kate that she should wear rose buds in her hair, she'd look darling in them. Of course these two have already been together for 17 years, thus surpassing the record held by the average heterosexual couple. Such as it is.

I'm shopping for silver patterns.

These two women are in their 60's, so spare us your anxieties about underage women.

Really. All you who think the world is coming to an end here, get over yourselves. You're a married heterosexual? Mazultof. Hope you stay together and be happy. Throw roses at Kate and Angela, and wish them the same. Support Brad and Jeff and their daughter next door. No one is threatening you. All is well. People in love want to get married. I say, let's throw a party.

All who would make faces like prunes, stay home.

"All you Bible-believing folks, where in the Bible is polygamy condemned? I cannot find so much as a verse in the Hebrew Scriptures (wherein all the heroes of God had multiple wives) where this practice is questioned, let alone condemned."

Old Susan, if you look at the story of David and Bathsheba, you will find that God, through Nathan, tells David that he had given him all of Saul's wives. Sounds to me like an endorsement of polygamy, doesn't it?

The polygamy argument does not hold water, whether on Biblical or secular grounds. Another commenter stated that polygamy is always exploitative of women, something that is quite easily disproven (all we need is one instance of it not being so to disprove them). Perhaps that poster would want to visit the "Merry Wives" cafe.

deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660207119,00.html

Old Susan, if you look at the story of David and Bathsheba, you will find that God, through Nathan, tells David that he had given him all of Saul's wives. Sounds to me like an endorsement of polygamy, doesn't it?

Nice point, RJohnson, hadn't thought of that one!

Christ discussed the Mosaic law regarding divorce. He didn't approve, and we can assume God didn't either. Divorce, polygamy, fornication - none of this is what God has planned for us, and it is not what is best. It was, however, permitted for a time.

There is NOT a Christian tradition in favor of polygamy. And there is no reason why Christians are bound to argue in favor of the polygamous relationships that took place in Israel or anywhere else.

Augustine argues that these relationships were PERMITTED to the Old Testament Fathers for the good of the "multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification." The issue of marital chastity w/in polygamy is discussed, as well as the fact the one man had more than one wife, but not vice versa and the reasons for this. (On Christian Doctrine.)He is an apologist for the Patriarchs not b/c this practice was accepted in Christianity, but precisely b/c it was not and has never been.

But the point is not to establish a theocracy, no I'm not sure why we are arguing about Scripture. The argument is about what tends toward the common good.

OK...so now we want to talk about incest. Why not? It's already not sanctioned in New Jersey for folks over 18. In Ohio it's only sanctioned when you do it with your parents. And Rhode Island repealed its incest laws in the late 1980s.

Now...those of you bringing up incest as the "next logical step" I have to ask you...what have you done about these three states not punishing folks for incest?

Or are we, once again, engaging in a bit of scare tactic here?

Thanks, Old Susan (gosh it's strange to type "Old Susan"). We've been together for over 23 years, married for just over 4 of them - on Valentine's Day, no less.

That's part of the (many) lies promulgated about gay people - that we don't have committed, long-lating relatinships. Back in 2004, the first lesbian couple 'wed' in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons who, at that point, had been together for 52 years. My friends Bobbi and Flo were together 47 years before God called Bobbi home. (I have myriad other examples, but they'd probably just bore you.)

When people ask my husband how long we've been together, he often says (with a smile), "We've been together 22 wonderful years." Then I'll remind him it's actually close to 24 and he'll say, "Well, 22 out of 24 is not a bad average." I lucked in - both a sense of humour and a romantic.

recovering,

Well, I am old. Sort of. I'm well old enough to be Rod's mother, for example. I don't FEEL old, but that's a different question.

When I read some of the constricted, worried, theologically constipated up-tight posts here, I feel like quoting Bob Dylan: "But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." I like to think that getting older loosens up those constricted places. At least it's supposed to.

Congratulations on your long-term marriage. I've been married, myself, for almost 42 years, and there's no blessing like it, as you can testify.

Mazultof to all the long-married who read this message. Hang in there. Love is what it's all about.

RJohnson: Did I miss anything?

Birth control is bad, mmmkay?

Jack: There is a difference between a "marriage" between people who by nature cannot procreate and a marriage between people who by circumstance or accident cannot.

It is the "nature" of a menopausal woman to not procreate. It's not a "circumstance" (like wearing tight boxer shorts which cause infertility) or "accident" (as is a hysterectomy.) Should a menopausal woman not be allowed to marry? Unless we aren't using the word "nature" in the same way.

Anyway, why should it matter to the state whether a couple's inability to procreate is the result of their "nature," medical circumstance, or whatever?

Re: polygamy:
Since some of you all are so concerned with "outbreeding the enemy," it seems that polygamy should become the social organization of choice. After all, some of those "traditional" polygamous men sire 30, 40 children (thus illustrating their "superior" fitness...)

Re: polygamy:
Since some of you all are so concerned with "outbreeding the enemy," it seems that polygamy should become the social organization of choice. After all, some of those "traditional" polygamous men sire 30, 40 children (thus illustrating their "superior" fitness...)

Hey, you think these folks who fear the fertility of Islam but who are otherwise emotionally constricted should be consistent? God forbid.

"But marriage establishes kinship between 2 previously unrelated persons. You are already related to your sister, so you have no need to establish kinship with her."

But i want our sexual union to be recognized by the state. Who are you to oppose that?

"Hey, you think these folks who fear the fertility of Islam but who are otherwise emotionally constricted should be consistent? God forbid."

That's a good one to remember the next time Rod trots out his "we are killing off our culture by having too few kids" story line. Polygamists are actually helping his cause, you'd think he'd be more supportive.

Look. You-all.

Let us suppose the Kate and Angela, or recovering and his husband, or whoever and whoever, are allowed to marry under civil law, will someone please explain to me how that negatively impacts me and my marriage (or, you and yours)?

Don't rant and rave about God, because not everyone shares your assumptions on that point. We're talking CIVIL marriage, get it? Please to not bring in marrying 6 year old girls or sheep or houseplants or something, that's not what's on the table. Don't tell me that men are therefore no longer inspired by women or some garbage, as was advanced the last time I tried this. ("Dante was inspired by Beatrice (who was, by the way, a total stranger who was 14 years old at the time) but men are no longer inspired by women, and this is because we might allow gay marriage." Huh?) Plenty of men claim to be inspired by me even, for example, and I'm not going to put this to the test, nor do I see what Brad and Jeff next door have to do with this.

I just plain don't get it. I wouldn't mind having it explained to me in a rational way, though.

I'm repeating myself again. Again. I have made this offer here on numerous occasions, in public and for private consumption. Please please someone make a rational argument here. If you're afraid or something to do it here, email me at sefoley@foleyfoleylaw.com.

I'm a heterosexual 62 year old woman, married for 42 years, mother of four, grandmother of three. I don't have a horse in this race. I just want someone to make sense for a change.

When no one offers even, I have to conclude that there is no argument which will stand up to level-headed intellectual argument, which is an interesting fact in itself.

Jack: "RJohnson: I think how the OT is understood depends a great deal on one's theological tradition. I don't really think this is a post about hermeneutics OR scripture. It is about marriage. I am answering the erroneous assertion that CHRISTIANS have a tradition of polygamy. It just doesn't exist. You can cherry pick from the OT all you want, and it doesn't change history."

Cool...let's take a look at the NT, shall we?

Titus 1:6-8

An elder must be blameless. He must be the husband of one wife and have children who are believers and who are not accused of having wild lifestyles or of being rebellious. Because an overseer is God's servant manager, he must be blameless. He must not be arrogant or irritable. He must not drink too much, be a violent person, or make money in shameful ways. Instead, he must be hospitable to strangers, must appreciate what is good, and be sensible, honest, moral, and self-controlled.

1 Timothy 3:2-5

Therefore, an elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, stable, sensible, respectable, hospitable to strangers, and teachable. He must not drink excessively or be a violent person, but instead be gentle. He must not be argumentative or love money. He must manage his own family well and have children who are submissive and respectful in every way. For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?

He must be the husband of one wife. Why? Because a polygamous man would not have the time necessary to devote to the work of an elder and still manage his home and family well.

Rather than take up the polygamy club to restrict same-sex marriage, maybe Christians should start addressing marital infidelity within our own ranks. Maybe, for a change, we should try being as pure as we insist the rest of the world should be.

I found that case that Max referred to earlier.

www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-details/European+Court+agrees+to+hear+chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do

An interesting case. The reason for the appeal to have him declared a human is so that he will be cared for if the place where he resides now is closed.

Seems that if we are going to compare this to same-sex marriage, the chimp should be asking for this himself, not someone on his behalf. After all, there is that concept called INTENT that needs to be looked at.

But then, if we actually analyzed this, it wouldn't be such a good straw man, would it Max?

Hey, thanks Franklin, I'm a terrible speller!

Maybe, for a change, we should try being as pure as we insist the rest of the world should be.

RJohnson, please wash your mouth out with beer, what a scandalous suggestion! You should be ashamed of yourself!

May I have a show of hands to excommunicate RJohnson? No, you and you, I see beer froth on your hands, please lower them immediately. And you over there? You think we don't know what you're thinking, but you're wrong!

"You must be new here, Jack, because I've related before that 1 of my 3 (heterosexual) sisters did not procreate in either of her marriages. Neither I nor the State (nor, in fact, the Churches in which she married) bothered to ask if it was "by nature" or "by circumstance or accident". They didn't ask if she could or if she intended to. If it is of no concern to the State, to her Church or to her family, I fail to see how it is any concern of yours.

It. Is. Not. A. Valid. Argument."

By that same argument my current marriage would be invalid, sinc emy wife cannot bear children.

R-EP demonstrates my earlier claim that civil marriage is ultimately meaningless. The definition we arrive at today doesn't matter, because tomorrow it will be changed again. Eventually "marriage" will mean "a legal relationship between or among two or more people for the purpose of tax breaks and inheritance rights."

Boy, how romantic.

There is a difference between a "marriage" between people who by nature cannot procreate and a marriage between people who by circumstance or accident cannot.

-- And that "difference" would be ...?

That one is not by nature capable of procreation, and the other is.

Not sure you understand the sense of how I'm using nature and accident. It is used as Aristotle or Aquinas might use the terms. Traditional, philosophical language.

Anything that distinguishes an individual is an "accident." All else is "nature."

Men and women are what they are by "nature." Billy and Suzie differ, and this is "accident." Perhaps I should use the scare marks in the future.

A man and a woman can, by nature, procreate. A man and another man cannot. Neither can two women.

Bob and Wilma may not be able to procreate, or they may not in fact procreate. Neither may Bill and Steve. But this is for a different reason. One is by nature. The other is by accident.

Rod, I am convinced it is not just emotivism, but some sort of pernicious nominalism that dooms all such discussions.

In response to: "I don't understand why people think that legalizing gay marriage is more likely to lead to polygamy than is heterosexual marriage.",

Simon says,

"Because it's being done by the COURTS"

And by the legislatures - twice! in fact.

"which have no authority to legalize anything except by appeal to abstract principles that are generally applicable to other situations."

The "abstract principle" to which they referred is called the Constitution. They didn't "legalize" anyting. Marriage is already perfectly legal. They just made sure that, per the Constitution, the law is equally applied to all citizens instead of UN-Constitutionally denying it to part of the citizenry. (I'm pretty sure the Constitution is also "generally applicable to other situations". Wish Mildred Loving were still alive; we could have asked her if it was "applicable" to her situation.)

Simon says,

"Of course, advocates of same sex marriage have yet to demonstrate much ability to prevail via the democratic process. Thus, their resort to the courts."

The courts are there to act as a check, a balance, to protect minorities (bless you Mrs. Loving) from the tyranny of the majority who, it seems, have a prediclection for passing UN-Constitutional plebiscites. Oh, and the "democratic process" you tout seems to work just fine - or did you forget that the California legislature twice passed laws allowing same-sex marriage?

Simon says,

"And when the judiciary justifies its legislative acts with extra-constitutional rubbish ..."

Citing the Constitution is now "extra-constitutional"? Amazing.

Simon says,

"A court can claim to allow gay marriage and oppose polygamy"

Polygamy is not (and was not) at issue in this case. It is nothing more, less or other than an extraneous scare tactic from the 'right'. And it isn't working.

Simon says,

"(or like the Supreme Court, it can assert a constitutional right to sodomy while refraining from finding a right to gay marriage)"

Once again, they are separate issues, even if you can't quite grasp that. (P.S. Sodomy, being defined as oral or anal copulation, is practiced by far many more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I'm not sure why you have a problem with it, but as a very wise former Prime Minister - and former Justice Minister - of Canada put it, the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nations. Lawrence v. Texas was yet another wise decision of the SCOTUS.)

Simon says,

"This is why the Founders never imagined, and wouldn't have tolerated"

You were there when they wrote it, huh?

Simon says,

"courts exercising the vast powers they have usurped over the past 50 years."

Tell it to George W. Bush, circa 2000. "Activist courts" indeed!

Sorry, Simon, I am not convinced.

"This is why the Founders never imagined, and wouldn't have tolerated" You were there when they wrote it, huh?

-- No but RJOHNSON was...

"This is why the founders protected our government from such things as voter initiated referendums. We have a government founded on a representative form of democracy, in which people elect representatives who govern them."

I do know that they wanted to protect the rights of slaveholders and all sorts of other lovely things... Not sure what any of this has to do with the post...

I agree with Jillian. It is best to just state one's case and move along. Otherwise, we will be discussing Aristotle, the Federalist Papers, Boswell, David and Bethsheba and who knows what else forever... But not marriage so much...

Old Susan, I'm relatively new to Rod's blogs, been on bnet several years, but boy, am I sorry I've not seen you in other places here. You are a kick! (I mean that it a totally good way - you are so refreshing and I love your style.)

Franklin Evans, I'd gladly kick back a have a brew with you.

Can someone explain to me why procreation plays such a supreme role in some of these arguments about marriage? God created Eve from Adam's side so she would be at his side, not behind him, not in front of him, but next to him, to be his companion. God said man should not be lonely and gave him a mate. God did not say, "Man should have someone to be his vessel."

Although wanting to have children is a great reason to marry, it's certainly not the only reason and it's stunning to see how many references there are here to that argument as the main reason to marry. I always thought wanting to share life with a person comes first.

If a couple does not want children, should they then not marry, according to that logic? Shall I divorce my husband once I am no longer able to have children since there is no longer a reason to marry?

In my old neighborhood, a widow next door (I'm Henry the VIIIth I am.... just kidding) was living with a gentleman her age - I think they were both about 70 years old. They were (gasp) co-habiting!!! And why did they not get married? They would have lost survivor and other financial benefits from previous relationships. Yet, she stayed with him through his sickness and ultimate passing, and they were clearly in love.

Please let's put the focus of marriage, even if you only want to talk heterosexual marriage, back where it belongs - on the love for the other person and the commitment to be there for them.

Someone hand Franklin some beer-batter fries!

Listen people, either marry your gay lover or not, your choice, but don't allow a seriously endangered tooth to explode. If they say you need a preventive root canal, believe them.

This is what happened to me in the Netherlands. On a Saturday night. My tooth imploded. It hurt like you can't believe. Well, in the Netherlands EVERYTHING is closed on Sunday, on account of how that is a Christian country, but unlike us, they mean it. Like everything, they shut the place down. If you need a quart of milk on Sunday too bad, drink water. (Also, the same Ascension Thursday, and, oddly, Pentecost Monday.)

So I had to get through all of Sunday on the opiates left over from my knee operation, and then I had to see a dentist I couldn't talk to (no common language) on Monday to have a root canal, which I finished today with an American dentist at only 4 times the cost of what I paid in Amsterdam. An ugly experience, on the whole.

I know this is off-topic, but a word to the wise.

Please let's put the focus of marriage, even if you only want to talk heterosexual marriage, back where it belongs - on the love for the other person and the commitment to be there for them.

Oh eastcoastlady, stop making sense, don't you see that's not what's at issue here??? :)

We could make reproduction the only focus of marriage. Some cultures do. So, until you produce a child (proof is proof after all) you cannot marry. Then you can.

We don't do it that way here, but we could. That's a bright line, everyone understands it.

Is that what you-all reproductive-major types are suggesting?

Think about the implications. I need not suggest them, unless you are a lot dumber than I think you are.

eastcoastlady,

You're into commitment. Are you ready to make divorce illegal?

eastcoastlady,

You're into commitment. Are you ready to make divorce illegal?

Oh, typical liberals, want to use the power of the State for everything. Thought we were conservatives here?

I just want to protect you old gals from abandonment by some jerk who gets the hots for some sweet young thing. Don't you care about the exploitation of women? If marriage is a contract ratified by the state, shouldn't the state have an interest in enforcing the terms of the contract?

Scrappy. You betcha. Ever hear of spousal support? Community property?

Because some old wreck "gets the hots" for some "sweet young thing" doesn't mean that the young thing will reciprocate, you know.

You're assuming that we "old gals" will be abandoned by men. What about all the "old men" who are abandoned by women who are tired of taking care of them? Women live longer than men, remember. Many women who figure this out dump the old coot before he becomes an emotional liability. Then he lives out his life in an SRO with a hot plate, while she's off on the beach somewhere. You don't worry about him?

Hint. Get off your sexist binge. You're not nearly as cute and attractive as you think you are. We'll dump you in a heartbeat.

Old Susan--no problems, here. Maybe your computer's acting up?

Hey, I was just trying to find common ground with eastcoastlady that marriage is all about commitment, since her selective reading of Genesis lead her to put companionship above children.

If you're getting married for the bennies - don't you want to lock in the deal? What good is a license or ceremony without the backing of the state to protect the arrangement between the parties? Why bother?

Jillian says, mustn't argue rationally with people who have from the get-go renounced rationality. Jillian says, mustn't argue rationally with people who have from the get-go renounced rationality. Jillian says, mustn't argue rationally with people who have from the get-go renounced rationality.

Repeat until I believe it.

So sorry for the all bold - did not mean to do that!!

OK. I'm ignoring what Jillian said. Because I can't help myself. Bad idea. I'm on opiates today, remember.

So, the "celibate" aunts of the hypothetical marry. This would be a problem why? Or if Kate and Angela marry? Or if Brad and Jeff (who have a daughter) marry? Or if Katherine and Diane down the street (who have four children) marry? This would threaten me and my husband (or you) exactly how and why?

Where the heck are you-all objectors on this planet? Are you-all, all of you, in Texas or something? Geez, I do my best, but what I hear on the internet from Texas and Ohio and Iowa and stuff isn't encouraging. If you-all there in the middle are so out of touch as all that, do you understand that all of your children who can't fit in with your ideas have moved here?

Can someone make sense here?

OK. I'm ignoring what Jillian said. Because I can't help myself. Bad idea. I'm on opiates today, remember.

So, the "celibate" aunts of the hypothetical marry. This would be a problem why? Or if Kate and Angela marry? Or if Brad and Jeff (who have a daughter) marry? Or if Katherine and Diane down the street (who have four children) marry? This would threaten me and my husband (or you) exactly how and why?

Where the heck are you-all objectors on this planet? Are you-all, all of you, in Texas or something? Geez, I do my best, but what I hear on the internet from Texas and Ohio and Iowa and stuff isn't encouraging. If you-all there in the middle are so out of touch as all that, do you understand that all of your children who can't fit in with your ideas have moved here?

Can someone make sense here?

Hi, [b]eastcoastlady[/b] - I find your posts interesting, especially your point about the Hebrew Bible requiring rabbinical discussion for its interpretation.

You wrote: Can someone explain to me why procreation plays such a supreme role in some of these arguments about marriage?

A lot of the commenters in the comboxes here are devout Catholics, who sincerely adhere to the Catholic doctrine on the absolute immorality of contraception. (I say 'devout' not in any sarcastic or snarky way, but to distinguish, because to my knowledge most American and European Catholics do not believe or adhere to this tenet of the religion.)

Others are Protestants who believe roughly the same thing, but who use other biblical/theological justifications than do Catholics.

This doctrine was codified by (at least) two popes in the 1920s and late 1960s, but is considered by Catholicism to be part of the "ordinary magisterium" of the Church; i.e. fundamental Catholic teaching going back to that religion's beginnings. Marriage is supposed to have a "unitive" (i.e. love-and-commitment) component as well as a "procreative" component - and the two are supposed to be absolutely inseparable, no exceptions whatever if the intent is to deliberately contracept.

Further, the 1960s encyclical Humanae Vitae insisted that the absolute prohibition against contraception is part of the "natural law" - i.e. it is supposed to be discernable by reason alone (i.e. not dependent upon being exposed to Catholic theology); applicable to all cultures, in all places and times, and thus morally binding on all people, not just Catholics.

These beliefs form the basis for all the other Catholic objections which follow - to heterosexual sex acts considered "unnatural;" to homosexual sex; to artificial reproductive methods, and so on.

(If I got any of this wrong, I beg pardon. I don't bring this up with any intention of disrespect, but simply to answer the question. Please correct where necessary.)

Those of you who are worried that the race may not be reproducing fast enough (and that accordingly everyone, gay and straight, old and young, should be recruited into the Great Effort) might profitably review the latest population growth statistics. Rest your mind, we're OK on this front.

Also have a look at the global price of rice while you're at it. Get it. People are going hungry. Perhaps we need to consider how we intend to feed what people we already have before we try to coerce gays into making more people.

Just a thought.

Susan, my post was written rather tongue-in-cheek, though the point is simple, which is this:

If marriage can mean one man and one woman, two men, two women, one man and a group of women, one woman and a group of men, two men and four women etc., who may/may not be in a sexual relationship, who may/may not be raising children (and the children may or may not be biologically related to anybody in the "marriage") who may/may not be committed to each other, who may/may not love, who may/may not see the sole purpose of marriage as inheritance rights and/or tax breaks, etc. ad infinitum--then what the heck does the word "marriage" even mean, anymore? Why should we even continue to use the word? Wouldn't "Civil Strategic Alliance" be a better phrase by that point?

Eruin,

If marriage can mean one man and one woman, two men, two women, one man and a group of women, one woman and a group of men, two men and four women etc., who may/may not be in a sexual relationship, who may/may not be raising children (and the children may or may not be biologically related to anybody in the "marriage") who may/may not be committed to each other, who may/may not love, who may/may not see the sole purpose of marriage as inheritance rights and/or tax breaks, etc. ad infinitum--then what the heck does the word "marriage" even mean, anymore? Why should we even continue to use the word? Wouldn't "Civil Strategic Alliance" be a better phrase by that point?

Perhaps.

About ten years ago, one of my college friends observed that we'd all stopped talking about ideas, and that now we're all talking about words.

I'm not sure whether this is a good idea nor not. Just an observation.

Erin, I respect you a great deal. You seem to be a person of great integrity, intelligence and morality.

Are we arguing about a word, to wit, "marriage"? If so, it's not just you and me. The gay-rights movement wants, very much, the recognition which is implied in that word. "Civil Union" will not do it for them.

So, what is your ground for denying the gays the civil recognition that they seek in that word? That you personally believe them to be morally in the wrong?

So, where is that outrage when people purport to divorce and remarry, which Jesus says in so many words is sinful? Are you ready to exclude and stigmatize those people in the civil arena? They should not be allowed to "marry" either? Are you even trying to bring such a stricture into effect?

If not, I'd say you are to that extent dishonest. You should logically be campaigning to deny civil recognition to all marriages made after divorce. Are you?

If you are not, then I'm wondering about your real motivations. Can you expand on what those may be?

And. dear Scrappy, your quote from Genesis 38:8 was altered and out of context.

"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Join with your brother's wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother".

commentary and explanation: Join with your brother's wife The marriage of a man and his brother's wife is forbidden by the Torah (see Lev. 18:16, 20:21). An exception is made only when a married brother dies without a son. According to Deut. 25:5, the brother of the deceased is obligated to take the widow as his wife. The institution is known in Hebrew as yibbun. In English, it is called "levirate marriage" (from Latin levir, "a husband's brother).
provide offspring for your brother There was no requirement to name the son of such a union after the dead brother. The child, however, was considered to be the dead man's heir.

It is not reproduction for the sake of reproduction.
We are also talking about a different time when it was critical to have male heirs, especially for certain people.

You cannot take one line out of context and say, "There, you're wrong!"

Only if you insist on taking the Torah literally without understanding its context and commentary and explanations can you take such a position without equivocation as yours. No Jew lives by the Torah alone; it must be read with the writings/commentary and prophets.

Scrappy, it's getting close to Grey's Anatomy time, so this is probably it for tonight (sigh of relief from all, please...)

Genesis 38:9
But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste whenever he joined with his brother's wife, so as not to provide offspring with his brother.
38:10
What he did was displeasing to the L-rd, and He took his life also.

Commentary:
9 would not count as his With the death of the firstborn, Onan stood to inherit one-half of his father's estate, because his brother left no heir. Should he provide an heir to his brother, however, his own portion would be less.
let it go to waste Literally, "he let it spoil on the ground." Apparently, there was no provision at that time for the kind of voluntary renunciation of the levirate duty that is permitted in Deut (25:7-9).
10 What he did was displeasing Onan incurs the anger of G-d because he evades his obligation to his dead brother, not because of the manner in which he acts. The issue here is levirate obligation, not birth control.

So please tell me again what my Bible means.
Or, not.

It's okay, Old Susan--I've been there (four crowns, three of them root canals necessitated by abscessed nerves). I'll ask St. Apollonia's intercession for you. :)

As for the other, the notion that we can argue about words independent of ideas seems strange--ideas are conveyed by words, are they not?

And with the word "marriage" comes a whole host of ideas that go back pretty far in time, sociologically speaking. Changing the "idea" of marriage from a union of one man and one woman to the union of anybody else who feels like signing up for legal benefits does change the word, from something with a clear, limited, finite meaning to something that is necessarily vague, unlimited, and infinite. How does it help society for us to do that?

Should we get rid of all words that refer to one gender or the other specifically on the grounds that all these words discriminate? A father can't be a mother, and vice versa; a husband can't be a wife, etc.--so are these words discriminatory and meaningless until we declare that anyone regardless of gender differentials can declare himheritthemselves to be any of these things hesheitthey desires?

Words mean things; in a world where words become meaningless, ideas will no longer even be communicable. We're heading that way now.

"Do not be surprised when the polygamists go to court pressing their claims, and, "We've always done it that way" proves no defense..."

Exactly. Simply referring to tradition as a self-justification for restricting people's autonomy is not a sufficient rationale in a modern, liberal, democratic order. It is fundamentally unpersuasive, it amounts to "Because I said so."

If you want to infringe upon someone's liberty, you must give a good reason why you are doing so. When it comes to gay marriage, an increasing number of people do not find the reasons to forbid marriage to gay people persuasive.

However, it does not follow that there are no good reasons to forbid polygamy. You can only argue that gay marriage is the slippery slop to X, if and only if you can show that one will lead to the other. You seem to be arguing that morally speaking they are the same from the perspective of a secular liberal.

Liberals argue for gay marriage based on the belief that it hurts no one and prohibiting gay people from marrying hurts many. From a liberal's perspective, polygamy would only logically rise from gay marriage if it was the case that polygamy hurt no one, while benefiting many.

So what say you, Mr.Dreher? Do you see anyway a secular liberal could argue that there are numerous costs to polgyamy that simply do not exist with gay marriage? Or do you think that the secular liberal is forced to say that morally speaking they are the same thing and must be permitted?

10 What he did was displeasing Onan incurs the anger of G-d because he evades his obligation to his dead brother, not because of the manner in which he acts. The issue here is levirate obligation, not birth control.

Well, I don't know much about any official Jewish position on the matter, but here's a second Jew with that third opinion you mentioned.

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

I'd say that Onan wasn't killed for avoiding the marriage, but for entering into the marriage and then desecrating it.

I'm guessing that your commentary says that the sin of Sodom was "lack of hospitality".

I'm sure that there is a lot of "modern" commentary out there, Christian and Jewish, that helps us feel close to God and still get to do whatever we want. I sincerely pray that you'll continue to question and grow in the truth of your faith.

Me: ""But marriage establishes kinship between 2 previously unrelated persons. You are already related to your sister, so you have no need to establish kinship with her."

Cornpone: "But i want our sexual union to be recognized by the state."

Your family status is already recognized by the government. Make a legal case to your Congresscritter, one that supercedes the consanguinity laws. Then maybe you could put your incestuous relationship to a public plebiscite (hey, what a concept - having your "rights" voted on for a switch!). Then convince the Supreme court of your state that your relationship passes Constitutional muster. Be prepared for a long legal battle and lotsa hate posts.

Good luck with that.

No really. I was a member of everything2, a website/discussion group/writers forum, back in the day, and we used to have what we called "meets." Translate, parties.

People would fly in from all over the world to attend these things. I went to one in Edinburgh at which one guy came from NYC, I came from California, one came from India, two came from London, and two were locals. Flew in for the party only, no other reason. You cannot possibly image how interesting those three days were. Another, a bigger one, in LA, people from all over. Fascinating, as you can imagine. Intelligent, thoughtful people from all over the planet, meeting to talk about...oh, whatever. I learned more than I can possibly describe.

Hey, we're rich here. Especially compared to the noders at E2. Wouldn't it be interesting to get together?

eastcoastlady: I'd gladly kick back a have a brew with you.

Beware of eastcoastlady. She has a penchant for emesis. That said, I'd buy her a beer anytime. Good gal.

Old Susan: emesis?

She pukes. Some other thread.

The real answer is, we don't love each other. The noders at E2, as weird as it can get there, at bottom, love each other.

We don't. We sometimes love each other, but mostly not. If I met any of you at a party, it's a toss-up what you'd say to me, or I to you. Do you love me? Probably not, Do I love you? Depends.

What's wrong with this picture? Why should a group of unsorted weirdos at everything2 love each other, we don't?

Old Susan: try making sense for a change. Just to vary the pace, OK?

Perfect sense, Old Susan. I always make sense.

eastcoastlady on another thread offered to throw up in my hands because she didn't understand the satire. Go find the thread if you want. Nevertheless, she seems a decent person.

BTW, just to be explicit -- emesis means "vomit".

r ex-P keeps sounding like the Monty Python argument clinic and yet confidently offers his own constraints to the definition of marriage: 2 men? Obviously! Brother and sister? Impossible!

Which is based on the following spontaneously uttered principle: ...marriage establishes kinship between 2 previously unrelated persons. You are already related to your sister, so you have no need to establish kinship with her.

So there!

How is this declaration any less arbitrary than any of the others we've been discussing?

Me: "And therein lies a very faulty premise. We aren't "abandoning" 1man/1woman marriages."

rr: "You've read too much into what I was saying. My point was that we abandoning the principal of seeing a valid marriage as restricted to one woman and one man."

Nope. I just re-read what you typed: "If we are going to abandon the traditional one women, one man definition of marriage". And it was not true. We aren't abandoning them. They still happen. And for those wo cling tothe "traditional definition", you are still welcomed and encouraged to have one that fits that definition.

Meanwhihle, neither you nor anyone else has offered any valid reason for restricting them to one woman and one man, despite our repeated requests.

scrappy,

"If marriage is a contract ratified by the state, shouldn't the state have an interest in enforcing the terms of the contract?"

I'll think on that for a while. But I don't think requiring procreation has ever been a term of the 'contract' - not for the State, and not for any religion I know of either.

Erin,

"But that's a religious notion, that marriage has anything to do with love and commitment."

It is? Gee, I never knew the non-religious weren't capable of or familiar with the concepts of love and commitment. Oh, I forgot, they's jus' roomies shackin' up together 'n sharin' stuff. To quote Erin Manning, "Boy, how romantic."

"If two celibate spinster aunts want civil marriage, how does their marriage hurt yours?"

It doesn't. Nor does mine hurt yours. (You do know that in the not so distant past, in certain circles, the term "two celibate spinster aunts" was code for lesbians, don't you? Thanks for the example, since it kinda proves our point.)

The Aristotlian or Aquinian "sense" of nature/accident is quite irrelevant.

-- Yeah... Even if that is the sense in which I am using it??? Not sure I follow you on that...

If you're not going to make arguments that support your position, why bother debating?

-- What is your argument? That everything I say is irrelevant? Wow, that's compelling! (or did I miss something?)

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage.

-- I'm not sure I'm the one not getting it... Either you aren't getting it, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. But either way, if we're having this much trouble communicating, I suggest we throw in the towel.

"What about divorce and remarried men and women? Catholics don't believe they really are married, so I don't see how this is an issue. Protestants and the Orthodox, however, do believe that marriages can be dissolved and that people can get remarried, so things are different for them."

Or, rr, if I may clarify: Catholics can't tell better than anybody else by simply looking at a male/female couple whether or not that couple is validly married. Even if we suspect they are not, it's up to them (if they're Catholic) to get clarification from the Church, get their marriage blessed if that's possible, and either agree to separate or to live "as brother and sister" for the sake of their children if it's not possible.

In other words, charity requires us when introduced to Mr. and Mrs. X to assume that their marriage is putatively valid unless we happen to know for a fact that this is not the case (in which case some private encouragement for them to regularize the situation may be warranted, assuming it's within our power to offer such advice charitably). But in the case of Mr. and Mr. or Mrs. and Mrs., there's no "putative" about it: their marriage simply isn't a marriage at all, as they lack that very obvious and necessary gender differentiation that makes the state usually called "marriage" possible in the first place.

So, society giving the green light to gay marriage puts those who believe as I do in a very precarious position. At the very least, it's going to be rather awkward socially, since the opinion of quite a few Catholic moral theologians is that Catholics may not attend a same-sex marriage, or acknowledge it, or do anything at all that facilitates further the objective sinfulness of these relationships without themselves incurring sin.

I do quite like your comparison involving atheists being forced to acknowledge God; it's a good insight into the situation.

"Which is based on the following spontaneously uttered principle: ...marriage establishes kinship between 2 previously unrelated persons. You are already related to your sister, so you have no need to establish kinship with her.

So there!

How is this declaration any less arbitrary than any of the others we've been discussing?"

It's not.

Actually, there is one last thing to say.

"Atheist have beliefs that lead them to conclude that God doesn't exist, religious conservatives likewise have beliefs that lead them to conclude that "gay marriages" aren't real marriages."

No one is asking you to believe anything, as far as what a "real marriage" is. Speaking for myself (and I'm sure many if not most other social liberals), I really don't care what social conservatives think in the privacy of their own churches, homes and brains, as long as it doesn't get in the way of my life or the lives of people I care for. What I am concerned with is how the state defines marriage, and who is able to participate in that institution. Your comparison of how religious conservatives look at marriage vs. how atheists look at the existence of God doesn't make sense here, in that you are still free to have whatever definition of marriage you want (there's some people out there who think that certain interfaith or interracial marriages are not real marriages). The issue isn't what you should or shouldn't think (though it would be nice to have you come to enlightenment), but what the law says or should say.

"I remember reading in one of Garry Wills books (I forget which one) that at one time in our Holy Roman Catholic Church, that post-menopausal women who attempted marriage were automatically excommunicated."

newenglander, could you provide the quote, please?

I remember reading in one of Garry Wills books

I think I see your problem already.

(I forget which one) that at one time in our Holy Roman Catholic Church, that post-menopausal women who attempted marriage were automatically excommunicated.

Part of the Magisterium, I'm sure.

No, actually, its not.

Simply because they were not capable of producing children! Source please.

Well, today, we don't believe that crap, do we? (Well, maybe some of them religious right-wing nutcases do).

This "right-wing nutcase" doesn't and doesn't believe the premise. Especially given that you got it second from Garry Wills. You might be surprised to know that outside of ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN, Mr. Wills is not quite seen as reliable.

Here's a good example of why it's a good idea to use one's own critical reasoning faculties.

Catholicism and Reason have always been co-existant. Maybe you've heard of an obscure man by the name of Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastic movement.

And not simply accept what is dished out to us from Rome....a stew of stupidity!

Yeah, there definitely is a stew of stupidity around here.

Beware of eastcoastlady. She has a penchant for emesis. That said, I'd buy her a beer anytime. Good gal.

Roland, I didn't know I throw up - thanks for warning me.

But I appreciate the "good gal", and I'll gladly accept that beer....

Stefanie, now that I know who you are - thank you. I've cut and pasted your explanation to a word document on my PC so I can re-read it from time to time.

eastcoastlady, I would be honored to share a beer or three with you. I will selfishly suggest we meet in Philly, and invite our fellow regional neighbors from this forum. Wouldn't that be fun? :-)

With enough notice, we can take over my neighborhood pub. The regulars there would fit in quite well with the love of beer and good discussion both.

Cuspidor is very nice trollish name. My congratulations to your parents.

Here, have a nice Troll Biscuit. It's tasty, nutritious, and will have you begging for more.

One thing, though: It has no straw in it. You must find your own supply.

Do you really believe that your straw man deserves respect, or that the way you phrased it deserves a civil reply?

Erin Manning: So, society giving the green light to gay marriage puts those who believe as I do in a very precarious position. At the very least, it's going to be rather awkward socially, since the opinion of quite a few Catholic moral theologians is that Catholics may not attend a same-sex marriage, or acknowledge it, or do anything at all that facilitates further the objective sinfulness of these relationships without themselves incurring sin.

You are in no more a "precarious" position than that regarding the case you already mentioned, of the Catholic divorced-and-remarried couple. You meet your neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. D&R. You know they're D&R because they have a blended family; the mom you saw driving two of the kids to soccer practice at the parish team a few years ago is *not* the same mom standing in front of you, ready to shake your hand. All the "blended" kids go to the parish school. Mr. & Mrs. D&R take the kids to Mass (once in a while) as well as confirmation classes, but they don't receive Communion themselves.

Now I ask you - how "awkward" is this, really? We're not talking "putative" here. Everybody *knows* they're remarried, because of the combination of kids. You and I both know that you can walk into any suburban parish in the USA and see this repeated 1000X over. Nobody's awkward, nobody's being persecuted for believing that these couples are on the hell-bound train for flouting Catholic teaching. Especially, most people *even in the parish* are *not* going to walk up to them and start lecturing them about ther "sham" marriage. Most people in the parish probably think it's pretty ridiculous that Mr. & Mrs. D&R are kept on the margins, so to speak, and will tell you frankly if asked.

Nobody thinks for a moment Mr. & Mrs. D&R are going to stop sleeping with each other, either - their cute little 6 month old baby is proof of that.

If this isn't happening with divorced and remarried people *even within Catholic parishes,* why would gay marriage serve as any kind of problem for Catholics - especially as most gay couples are far more interested in churches which *will* bless their unions, and incorporate them fully into church life? (I might say the same for divorced people as well; the two situations are pretty analogous. In *both* cases, there are *some* Christians who don't feel that their marriages are "real.")

Stefanie, the demographics of Unitarian congregations in the 60s and 70s (and perhaps beyond, but I stopped paying attention) showed a very significant influx of (former) Catholics who had civil divorces, and were subsequently "shunned" by their faith communities.

My question is this: If a significant number of people object to a doctrinal constraint on a social dynamic, to the point of leaving that faith community altogether, what does that say about the constraint? What does it say about the putative "infallibility" of the beliefs and subsequent logic that lead to the constraint?

"Reproduction. It's the LAW."

Well, some religionists here seem to think so.

ReP "offers his own constraints to the definition of marriage: 2 men? Obviously! Brother and sister? Impossible!"

Not "impossible", unnecessary. You're already related.

rr,

"This is what I've been arguing all along, that the objective of the gay-rights movement with respect to "gay marriage" isn't "equality" and certain legal benefits, as for example with a civil union."

rr, it has already been established that "civil unions" are not "equal". That is why your "arguing all along" is futile.

"They may get the word "marriage" attached to their relationship by the state"

Why do you anti-gay folks continue to speak in the wrong tense? The word marriag is already attached to our relationships by the state.

"But for religious conservatives, using that word in conjunction with their relationships violates our religious beliefs and religious freedoms."

rr, the CA decision wasn't about religious marriages; it was about civil marriages. We aren't asking "religious conservatives" to marry us or bless our marriages, merely to accept the fact that they exist - because they do. What would actually violate your religious beliefs would be to force your religion to perform same-sex marriages. No one is asking for that to happen, and it never will (certainly not before the Catholic Church is 'forced' to marry divorced people. The situation you envision is both hypothetical and false. And you admit as much yourself when you say, "What about divorce and remarried men and women? Catholics don't believe they really are married, so I don't see how this is an issue. Protestants and the Orthodox, however, do believe that marriages can be dissolved and that people can get remarried, so things are different for them."

See? You're cool with Catholics not believing re-married divorcees are "really" married, while allowing others (Protestants and the Orthodox) their religious freedom to believe otherwise. yes, things are different for them, and they are likewise "different" for those faiths that do embrace and perform same-sex marriages. You have made our point for us, and for this, I thank you.

But, since you brought up your religious freedoms, you need to answer the question: What about ours? By not allowing those faiths that do embrace same-sex marriage to perform them, our religious freedoms are actually impinged upon.

quote: "Your comparison of how religious conservatives look at marriage vs. how atheists look at the existence of God doesn't make sense here, in that you are still free to have whatever definition of marriage you want (there's some people out there who think that certain interfaith or interracial marriages are not real marriages). The issue isn't what you should or shouldn't think (though it would be nice to have you come to enlightenment), but what the law says or should say."

Actually, it does. I and other religious conservatives don't believe that gay marriages are real marriages. Two men can get a license from the state, even have a ceremony in a liberal church, and can call each other husband all they want. That in my eyes will no more make them married to each other than declaring themselves to be the Kings of England would make them such. And Erin made a good point about divorce and remarriage earlier. When conservatives see a man and women who claim to be married, the immediate presumption is that they are indeed married, though it is possibly their union is problematic in certain cases of divorce and remarriage. With two men or two women there simply is no possibility from the get go that they could be married to each other. Period.
So if the state allows "gay marriages," what happens to conservatives say in the workplace who refuse to acknowledge gay "spouses" as being real spouses? Or what about businesses run by conservatives (say a bakery or flower shop) that refuse to help out ceremonies for "gay marriages"? My experience with liberals tells me they aren't exactly going to be tolerant of conservatives in situations like this which will invariably arise in workplaces and social situations if "gay marriage" becomes the reality that gay-rights activist want it to be. Despite your insistence otherwise, liberals definitely won't be happy when we conservatives flat out refuse to recognize "gay marriages" as real in social settings and the workplace. It's no giant leap of logic to see state-sanctioned "gay marriage" becoming a tool to attempt to force the normalization of homosexuality upon those with objectives. Just don't be surprised if and when this happens if there isn't an enormous backlash.
As for enlightenment, sorry, you can keep it. Your definition of "enlightenment" is likely my definition of darkness.

rr

That's a fair response, Scrappy, if a bit pejorative... please don't take my rebuttal as anything but sincere.

It would seem to me that the cake-and-eat-it critique works in both directions. RC churches should routinely expel (in whatever formal and reasonable sense that needs to take) people who break with doctrine. If a congregant fails to comply with doctrine, the response should be "if you must, but not in my church."

The result will be one of two things: church membership will plummet, or church doctrine will be reconsidered.

I did not mean to use "infallible" in a sarcastic way, though I see now it could be taken that way. Sorry about that.

r ex-P,

You're taking my response to that nice Jewish eastcoastlady out of context. We were discussing marriage in the religious context. There are multiple threads of thought, some religious, some civil, intertwined on this comment thread. You're correct of course to observe that there is already a difference between sacramental marriage and civil marriage and I'd say that difference is likely to widen.

You admit "What would actually violate your religious beliefs would be to force your religion to perform same-sex marriages". How are you so sure this won't be attempted? What about the photographers in New Mexico who got sued for refusing to work a "gay wedding"? Why couldn't a church be sued using the same logic?

Scrappy, I'm on a roll with cross-posting! ;-)

What about the photographers in New Mexico who got sued for refusing to work a "gay wedding"? Why couldn't a church be sued using the same logic?

The correct answer to your logical connection above -- needing an attorney to confirm -- is that a for-profit business is governed by different laws than a church (being, for legal purposes, a subset of non-profit organization). Service providers (in the broad sense, and can include non-profits) are not permitted to discriminate to whom they will deliver their services. Non-profits, so long as there is no taxpayer money involved, are exempt from that. The only thing I'm sure about in all that is that I'm oversimplifying.

For now, no church should be concerned. Should a law be passed addressing the discrepancy with for-profits, you may count on at least one pagan (with quite a few friends) joining you in protesting it and working to repeal it.

rr, yes, there could be repurcussions in the workplace, and in social settings, but sadly, at least in social settings, people with many types of differences are already treated "differently".

The idea, IMHO, is to legally and civilly legitimize gay relationships, one, so gay couples can feel their desire to establish a legal bond is vaildated, and two, gay couples who want to commit to each other as much as hetero couples can establish legal rights that actually matter and are taken for granted for hetero couples. This could include such things as power of attorney, DNR decisions in the event accident/illness/whatever, inheritance rights, health insurance, etc. It's possible, for example, for a non-approving family member of a gay couple to say that they are the one entitled to some inheritance in the event of an untimely death of one of the members of the couple, versus the partner of the (theoretically) deceased.

Honestly, I don't feel harmed or threatened by the civil acknowledgement of a gay couple, and I don't think that a gay couple is any less entitled to be recognized when they want to establish a legal relationship than is a hetero "common-law" couple who does not actually marry (for those states that recognize common-law marriages).

I also think it's a stretch to think that religious institutions will somehow be forced to incorporate the provisions of such a civil law into their liturgy or operating practices. When my parents divorced, for example, they got a legal divorce and then got a religious one. They did not have to get the religious divorce because of civil law, but they chose to. Point is, I wouldn't worry about any religious institution being forced to do anything they don't want to do. What they choose to do because of "popular opinion" of their membership is something else.

"What is your argument? That everything I say is irrelevant? Wow, that's compelling! (or did I miss something?)"

Yes, jack, you seem to have missed a lot. You said that "the difference" between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples was the inability to procreate ("That one is not by nature capable of procreation, and the other is.").

My argument is and was and always will be that the ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage by either the State or a religion, and therefore "the difference" is irrelevant. And it will remain irrelevant until it becomes a requirement.

No, not "everything [you] say" - this point.

And, to reiterate, your point is also false in many situations. Many heterosexuals are likewise not capable of procreation. You would need to explain why they are still "allowed" to marry if this "difference" is relevant.

Thanx 4 playing. Please don't throw in your towel.

Erin,

"in the case of Mr. and Mr. or Mrs. and Mrs., there's no "putative" about it: their marriage simply isn't a marriage at all"

Is this the "charitable" way you tout? It "isn't a marriage" in the eyes of Church. But I don't go to your Church. Why would it's judgement/tenets be applicable to my marriage which was blessed in my Church and most definitely is a marriage in the eyes of the State?

Rob said,

" it is puzzling and disturbing to see governments devaluing marriage and undermining family life"

But saying the government 'devalues' marriage and 'undermines' family life (by recognizing my marriage) doesn't make it so. You are free to believe it does, and we are free to believe it doesn't.

"parents more than ever need to perceive that their commitment to the next generation is valued"

You forget (or willfuly ignore) the fact that not all married couples are parents - heterosexual or homosexual. Parenting is a separate issue from marriage, whether you like it or not.

"The term “marriage” is one small indicator of that esteem - a simple symbol representing our conviction that a union open to the possibility of new life with its inherent responsibility and sacrifice is deserving of special status."

Except, of course that not all heterosexual married couples' "unions" are "open to the possibility of new life", yet we 'allow' them to marry anyway.

"Those heterosexual couples who can't have children or who marry later in life, don't destroy the symbolism."

We just love how you like to make exceptions to your rules - for some people.

"Exalting their union still illustrates the fact that we as a society cherish the potentiality of new life"

There is no such "potentiality" in infertile heterosexuals.

Your contention that "we believe neither a mother or father is redundant in the nurturing of that new life is a strange non-sequitur, especially when it 'pertains' to those couples that do not create "that new life".

"Reserving “marriage” for committed heterosexual relationships is not discriminatory."

Clearly the California Supreme Court disagrees with you. Probably because it is.

"It is a pedestal - a recognition by society that not only the sacrifice, but the very symbolism of propagating and nurturing the species must be elevated. No country should feel guilty in distinctly honouring a relationship with such awesome significance."

Except, of course, not all heterosexual relationships make that "sacrifice" or are even capable of "propagating" or are endowed with that "awesome significance". If you don't require it of all heterosexuals, it's odd that you still want to apply that criteria to other non-procreative couples.

betterosexuals

I like that.

rr,

"I and other religious conservatives don't believe that gay marriages are real marriages."

And you are free to continue to believe so. What you believe has no bearing on my life. What the State recognizes does.

"When conservatives see a man and women who claim to be married, the immediate presumption is that they are indeed married, though it is possibly their union is problematic in certain cases of divorce and remarriage."

I see you switched adjectives from "real" to "problematic". The str8 example you just gave is one of an actual real, valid, legal marriage. The fact that some conservatives might find it "problematic' is the conservatives' problem, not the married couple's.

"With two men or two women there simply is no possibility from the get go that they could be married to each other. Period."

Perhaps in La-la-land, or Let's pretend place. But in real life, that possibility is very real. Thousands of real live gay couples have proven you quite wrong (i.e. delusional).

So if the state allows gay marriages, what happens to conservatives say in the workplace who refuse to acknowledge gay spouses as being real spouses?"

Well, if they're co-workers, they'll just have to agree to disagree and try to be, what was Erin's word? Oh yes, "charitable" about it. If it's the employer, s/he had better get his/her policies in line with the State's employment non-discrimination laws.

"Or what about businesses run by conservatives (say a bakery or flower shop) that refuse to help out ceremonies for gay marriages?"

They'd better be prepared for some discrimination lawsuits. Either you are open for business with the whole public or you are not. Who else would they be allowed to refuse service to? The disabled? People of colour? The (gasp!) divorced? Or worse, the divorced and remarried?

"It's no giant leap of logic to see state-sanctioned gay marriage becoming a tool to attempt to force the normalization of homosexuality upon those with objectives."

('objections', surely.) Homosexuality is normal - for homosexuals.

"I love my master. He lets me dance on his leg. We love each other. He proposed to me today! I consent!

Posted by: Fido | May 23, 2008 12:06 PM"

Hey, look everybody - the world's first (and only) typing dog.

Fido, I hope you will invite me to your nuptials. I doubt that you would, for you will be exposed as human. Funny thing, deception.

"Homosexuality is normal - for homosexuals."

Malignant cells are normal - for tumors.

Thanks, Scrappy. I admire your honesty and effort to see the whole picture.

I've always found it interesting how law and precedent can trump logic. A personal example:

I had a great-uncle who had a female companion during his retirment. They co-habitated, maintained joint property, and she was his dependent in the spousal sense, all of those things in a legal sense. Her role in the relationship could easily be viewed as that of housekeeper with benefits. ;-) When he passed, she claimed and was granted common-law wife status.

To the knowledge of every member of my family, Uncle Branco never had sex with her. They certainly never produced a child. She held herself at a distance from us whenever we visited him, which is the other reason I'm blanking on her name (the first being the span of more than 4 decades...)

See how logical this is?

Not at all.

You've described special protections for clergy and sacred spaces that are thin indeed.

I'd expect an assault based using "hate crimes" thinking, which declares homosexuality analogous to race; a type of "community", like an ethnic group, that can't be discriminated against.

I've never heard of a bunch of rainbow-sashed divorcees crashing a worship service of any kind. There's no organized attempt by the "divorced community" to push an agenda for special rights. No "Divorced Pride" parades. Your analogy is not reassuring.

rr, a better analogy would be to the erstwhile law prohibiting blacks from sitting at the front of the bus. When the law was superceded, any bus driver attempting to enforce the defunct law -- even if his motivation was religious -- would be wrong and subject to legal consequences.

Unless the photographer is wearing several hats, one of which is clerical, he/she is not "participating" in a wedding. Provision of a business service is governed by anti-discrimination laws. There are unmentioned details that should be examined, like whether the New Mexico photogs knew in advance that the wedding was same-sex. Regardless, we come back to a similar discussion held here concerning a pharmacist motivated by religious belief refusing to dispense contraceptives, especially when the pharmacy in question carries them with intent to sell them. It's a morass, for sure, but there is a clear line between legal discrimination and freedom of religion.

Franklin,

"when it comes to legal issues, the law must be prepared to change to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority; when it comes to social issues, minorities must be prepared to expect different social treatment and deal with it on that level and basis. When the law rightfully defines that line, those with social objections must also be prepared to be disappointed."

Well said. (As usual.)

"Pluralism is that state where open discussion about the dynamics occurs and continues. Tyranny's first step is to forcibly end that discussion by making and enforcing its definitions with no recourse for those negatively impacted thereof."

Again, perfectly articulated. It seems to me that many conservatives are not happy that they live in a pluralistic society. Nor do they seem to care a toss for those negatively impacted. That is why I took my own pastor's advice and took an injustice to court - and won.

"Loud, derisive laughter. The whole weight of contemporary secular thought is directed to the destruction of anything based on "we've always thought...", "everybody knows...", "no one in his right mind would...", etc."

I wish it were. Unfortunately, most of what "everybody knows" is WRONG!! For a long time, everybody knew that women and non-whites were incapable of rational thought and needed the guidance and control of white males. There are still places where everybody knows that the Jews control the banks and the media (so how come I'm broke and can't get published?) In Nazi Germany, everybody knew that people with mental disabilities were useless mouths sapping the strength of the master race and its state. You get the idea. The minute I hear one of those phrases I know I am listening to somebody who knows nothing about the topic at hand except what he has heard while listening with one ear to a source he cannot remember and may not even be quoting accurately. And the people who use such phrases are as likely to be "secular" (at least in the sense of not shaping their lives according to the teaching of any religion) as religious.

quote: "It has already been established that polygamous/polyandrous/polyamours relationships are in no way "equal" because of their inherent inequity. And the incestuous relationships already have state recognition - brothers and sisters are already part of the same "family". Good try though."

It has most certainly not been established that they have some inherent inequity. And even if they do, what business of it is yours? Who are you to impose YOUR morality on people who want polygamous marriages? Isn't that what all those nasty conservatives do with gays? As long as polyamorous people are 1) consenting adults and 2) have signed a contract that involves all parties in the marriage, who cares? And no, states do not recognize incestuous relationships. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. You assertion about brothers and sisters is no different than saying gays already have the right to marry, as long it's someone of the opposite sex.
You know, time and time again you prove my point. "Gay marriage" isn't about "equality," or else those in support of gay marriage would support the right to form polyamorous and incestuous marriages as well. It's simply illogical and glaringly hypocritical to support "gay marriage" and not support polyamorous and incestuous marriages. "Gay marriage" also will most definitely will trample on the religious rights of conservatives, as you have already illustrated for us. So what's this all about? Quite clearly, using the state to normalize homosexuality.

rr

r e-P,

Your pretending to not understand arguments is becoming tedious. But I'll try one more time. I'm trying to understand your world view and you're just being contrary.

So, enlighten me. We know what marriage is, in terms of the benefits, etc. Please define who is eligible to be married, in terms of number, gender, age, and other sociological attributes. Please highlight why "two" is part of the definition, but "any number", "any age", "regardless of kinship" isn't.

Erin,

"I do not acknowledge same-sex marriages as valid. To me, you are not married."

Tell me something I don't know, Erin. Then please realize I don't care if you "acknowledge" my marriage. I care that the State does.

"I am sorry if that hurts your feelings, but my right to live my Catholic faith allows me to say this, even outside of church."

Yes, you have that right, and in fact it isn't what "hurts my feelings" (as if you ever cared about them anyway). It is when you blithely describe my marriage as the equivalent of "marrying a plant" - your eagerness to demean, diminish and debase me (as if I and my husband are non- or sub-human) and my marriage - is what I find monstrous (and un-Christian/un-charitable) in you.

"I will never acknowledge two men or two women as a married couple. I should not be forced to do so, as doing so violates my freedom of religion."

I've said repeatedly that you are free to believe what you want. And that the Catholic church is free to preach that I am intrinsically morally disordered. No one is 'forcing' you to stop believing or preaching that (hateful, imo) message.

You are, however, not "free" to have the State favour your marriage over mine.

"But your reference to K of C halls or photography businesses shows that you are not willing to extend religious tolerance to the *memebers* of a religion, only to the actual Church itself."

It is not me that makes the distinction regarding establishments that do business with the public. I am a member of the public, whether you like it or not. (See Franklin's much more eloquent response above regarding this.) I respect their right not to have a same-sex marriage. I do not respect their attempt to prevent me from having one for myself.

"So, no Catholic priests will be forced to marry gay couples"

Thank you for at last agreeing that what I've been saying all along is, in fact, truth.

"but you want Catholic business owners to be forced to rent property for these gay weddings and you want Catholic photographers forced to take pictures of gay weddings"

Actually, being a person that really does respect freedom of religion, I wouldn't have thought to ask a business owner what religion s/he is. It is of no concern of mine. If they are open for business to the public, I have as much right to purchase their goods and services as anyone else.

"and you want Catholic schools to be forced to hire married gay teachers and you want the Boy Scouts to be forced to allow gay married Scout leaders"

These are not "businesses", but I cannot imagine what concern the sexual orientation of their employees would be to them. They should be hiring on merit, not dogma.

"So while others keep shouting "How does gay marriage hurt *you*?" I'm very glad that you are willing to demonstrate how."

I disagree that I have demonstrated such a thing.

"Being forced to violate my religious beliefs hurts me."

The only violation would be if you were forced to perform or have a same-sex marriage for yourself. And that is not happening.

"Being forced to pretend that gay people are married when I believe they are not and never can be hurts me."

See my explanation near the top that you are free to pretend anything you want.

"Being forced to lose my rights to free speech and freedom of association in regards to my beliefs on the subject of gay marriage hurts me."

But of course, you haven't lost those rights. You are still free to call my marriage the equivalent of marrying a plant. Just don't be surprised when others balk at having to pretend that you are a charitable person for thinking so.

"This isn't "gay marriage hurts no one," this is "gay marriage hurts Catholics and other religious people"

Hmm, I'm a religious person, as are many others here who are not hurt by my mariage. They don't seem to agree that their rights have been infringed upon by my marriage. (Note the lack of smarmy quote marks.)

An answer, at last!

I care passionately that the State treats me and my relationship on an equal par with you and yours.

You don't know what it is, but you want one too!

"What the State recognizes does... "

This is the rub isn't it. Positivists say marriage is whatever we say it is... But that is not historically what has happened. The Church and the State recognized marriage as a good... They didn't create it. Marriage is what it always was, and always will be. Really, this is just another exercise in PC. We are going to control how people use language b/c people can't be made to feel excluded.

"The established legal pattern in the US is that a business, in the process of making or selling a product or service, may not discriminate according to broadly defined groups, including sexual orientation."

Actually, sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law. It is in California, but not out here in America.

As for religious freedom, you should really read up on what is going on in Canada and the UK. Free speech has suffered as a result of hate-crimes law. Here also, watch the tax exempt status of churches get attacked if they speak out. If you don't think all of this is going to have a big impact on freedom of religion and separation of church/state thinking in this country, read the writings of Chai Feldblum. She is a prominent legal scholar who supports gay marriage, etc. However, she willingly admits that the liberty she advocates for the LGBT community WILL be a burden to religious people, and WILL limit religious liberty. We come down on different sides of the argument, but I have to admire Feldblum's honesty. And she sees this as being the fight of the century in American Jurisprudence. She says:

Indeed, I would argue that gay people -- of all individuals -- should recognize the injustice of forcing a person to disaggregate belief or identity from practice. For years, gay people have been told by some entities that they should separate their status from their conduct. In the religious arena, this is framed as 'loving the sinner, but hating the sin.' That is, gay people have been told that their status as individuals with homosexual orientation is not inherently sinful -- but that if they act in a way consistent with that orientation, then they are engaging in sin.

In the legal arena, this approach to a gay person's identity and being has been framed as the "status/conduct" distinction. Particularly as a means of dealing with the holding in Hardwick, some legal advocates have argued that their clients should not be discriminated against for the status of being gay, although they have deliberately failed to claim equal non-discrimination rights for their clients' rights to engage in gay conduct. From the moment I became aware of this legal approach, I have detested it and argued against it. It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity and indeed disrespect, to tell someone it is permissible to "be" gay, but not permissible to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?

I have the same reaction to those who blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means? Of course, at some basic level, religion is about a set of beliefs. But for many religious people across many religious denominations (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim -- to note just the ones I have some personal understanding of), the day-to-day practice of one's religion is an essential way of bringing meaning to such beliefs. And while religious beliefs on homosexuality may seem the most familiar to us, there may be people with strongly held secular beliefs who feel just as strongly on the issue.

Scarppy,

"Your pretending to not understand arguments is becoming tedious."

Scrappy, I understand the arguments that have been made. I just don't believe they hold water. And I've made points to refute each and every one of them. Which "arguments" do you feel I have not understood (or pretended not to understand)? Or did you just mean 'disagree with'?

"But I'll try one more time. I'm trying to understand your world view and you're just being contrary."

My worldview is based on the premise that we are all created equal, and that liberty and justice for all means just that - all, not just heterosexual procreatives. My worldview is premised on the right to the pursuit of happiness which used to be guaranteed in America.

"Contrary"? You mean like the poster above who compared me and my relationship/orientation/being to a 'malignant tumor'?

"So, enlighten me. We know what marriage is, in terms of the benefits, etc. Please define who is eligible to be married, in terms of number, gender, age, and other sociological attributes. Please highlight why "two" is part of the definition, but "any number", "any age", "regardless of kinship" isn't."

My belief is that marriage is a public commitment between two consenting adult people for lifetime support, companionship, love, affection, etc.

Re: poly relationships...

In my way of viewing things, poly relationships lack the commitment. If one man has several wives, he has not made the commitment to any one of them (it must be shared among them). The wives, as was pointed out earlier, are not legally married to each other, so they have no commitment to the other 'spouses' in the relationship at all, certainly no legal standing. The wives are not free, then, to 'divorce' any or all of the other wives. I cannot imagine how wife number 1 feels when she hears her husband making love to another woman in the next room. The legal aspects are nightmarish - if the husband dies, who gets the inheritance? If it must be split among the 6 women, this is the inherent inequality I decry. Is it to go to wife #1 because she was the first wife? Or to wife #2 because she bore him the first child? Or is it wife #3 because she bore him the first male child? Or wife #4 because she offers him the best sex? If wive #5 dies, does only the husband inherit her savings? Or do the other wives get a cut? Can wife #6 forbid wives 1-5 from visiting him in the hospital because after all, they couldn't satisfy him and he chose her because of it? Is wife #6 the legal parent of the offspring of husband and wives 2,3,4 & 5? . Can legally married polygamist families from Saudi Arabia immigrate to America as an intact family? If poly families want legal recognition, let them line up and make their case. But as the California decision says, 2 men or 2 women do not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage. Having several spouses does.

Re: age restrictions...

One can get married in many States as young as 12 years of age with parental consent. The State has an interest in the ages of the participants because of the issue of consent. Normally, 12 year olds cannot make informed legal consent (hence parental approval required). There's also the issue of statutory rape. The relationships I favour involve, as I've repeatedly said, 2 consenting adults. You want to argue in favour of under-aged marriages? Then likewise, line up and make your case.

Re: incestuous relationships ...

Apart from the fact that the only reason either incest or polygamy gets raised here is to scare people with a false slippery slope/ick factor, marriage establishes kinship where there was none before. Brothers and sisters, parents and children alredy have that kinship not only established but also recognized by the State. Their family status goes unquestioned. Marriage establishes family status to the 2 previously unrelated consenting adults.

Does that help clarify my position?

Now, if only we could get a few answers as to why my religious freedoms should be infringed upon?

"But I want the state to recognize my sister as my WIFE! You have no right to deny me that."

Hey, it was good enough for Abraham. Oh, right, he wanted his wife recognized as his sister. Well, it was something like that.

"You don't know what it is, but you want one too!"

Where on earth did you come up with the idea that I don't know what marriage is? I'm married, after all.

P.S. Sorry for mis-spelling yourname above. Blame my dyslexia (and a very old keyboard).

Anon at 4:17, I gratefully accept your correction and stipulate the clarification. My point stands as otherwise stated: homosexuals are a protected class in commerce.

The crux of the belief/expression dilemma is contained within the ongoing balancing act for all such liberties. If religious expression results in the denial of rights to others, then the law -- defined as our governmental triumverate of legislation, executive and judicial -- steps in and resolves the conflict. The dilemma is in finding the balance point, and refraining from protecting the rights of some by denying the rights of others.

Case in point: I have attended outdoor, publicly-accessible pagan rituals, during which a varying number of Christians show up and proceed to disrupt the ritual with vocal protest sometimes using bullhorns, the blasting of airhorns, and on the rare occasion physical intimidation. One can rationally define their expressions under religious liberty, and deny them that right of expression in the specific situation under the concept of balance. I do not hesitate in demanding that their expression rights be denied in those circumstances. I claim the balance on my side. Any rationale in the opposite direction is tantamount to the biggest bully having the power of denying the rights of all others with no possible recourse.

"No one has ever been able to explain how my marriage has harmed (or heck, even affected) their marriage."

I don't think most people are arguing on behalf of their own marriages. I think we are engaged in this because we believe that this is harmful to society, and future generations. And many of us who have religious convictions believe that we have an obligation to do this out of love for our fellow man... Not hatred, as has been claimed above.

Franklin,

And you did a fine job. The boundary between your rights and mine is the crux of most legal issues.

I suppose my world view would express it as "Love your neighbor as yourself", which is so familiar that most people forget to think deeply about what "love" and "as" might really mean.

Cuspidor hasn't made an affirmative argument for his case, but if marriage boils down what's legal - sodomy is legal and incest isn't - then the question (which is beyond the scope of the current discussion) is "why" - why is sodomy legal and incest illegal?

"These are not 'businesses', but I cannot imagine what concern the sexual orientation of their employees would be to them. They should be hiring on merit, not dogma."

Says who? Religious institutions like Catholic Schools have every right to hire on dogma and not just orthodoxy, but orthopraxy... and they do. Yours is a very odd understanding of religious freedom... Sounds like a liberal version of dhimmitude in fact... Hey, maybe those people that wanted to move should just hang around...

Bob: "Those heterosexual couples who can't have children or who marry later in life, don't destroy the symbolism."

REP We just love how you like to make exceptions to your rules - for some people.

Bob: "Exalting their union still illustrates the fact that we as a society cherish the potentiality of new life"

REP :There is no such "potentiality" in infertile heterosexuals.

REP, even if there seems to be a kind of willful deliberateness here to misunderstand you, just know that I am hearing you, and understand what you are saying. I too am unhappy at some pretty rude and trollish comparisons here; comparisons which seem really out of character with Beliefnet as a forum.

I also appreciate the clarification about non-reproductive heterosexuals (being one myself.) I know what Bob is referring to with this inherent "symbolism" in the sexual act that is supposed to only be "valid" or "real" if it has the "potential" for reproduction (unless you happen to be a woman with a hysterectomy, or past 50, or ... so many exceptions, so little time.)

I for one do not accept the idea that an aged (for instance) newly-married straight couple are supposed to be "symbolic" of anything in any absolute ontological sense. They may be subjectively symbolic of something (like, symbolic for long-absent love that got reunited at the 40 year high school reunion, whatever), but as far as carrying some kind of symbolic freight to represent "potential fertility," uh, whatever. But just because Group A happens to believe that, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Erin Manning, I appreciate your energetic responses - but the conclusion which I draw from them is that divorced & remarried couples, while theologically "squicky," and perhaps a bit problematic at the parish level, just don't produce the same deep visceral "squick" as gay couples. However, from a theological standpoint, D&R couples *are* as much in "sham marriages" as gay ones. So move over, folks - the bench is very long; there's plenty of room.

Actually, sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law. It is in California, but not out here in America.

And how, exactly, do you define "America"? Do tell.

Erin Manning writes: "...you want the Boy Scouts to be forced to allow "gay married" Scout leaders--and on and on and on."

Just an aside:
The courts pretty much ruled that one out for now. And the rules have also helped kick out agnostics and atheists from the organization. That's right: The courts established that the Boy Scouts of America has the legal right as a private organization to discriminate on the basis of religion. Wiccans and Unitarians are 'in' for now but highly suspect and Scouting USA has had 'issues' extending its religious awards program to those religious organizations. Most scouting organizations in other countries are appalled.

I think the descent for scouting started when they move the Boy Scout headquarters from New Jersey to Texas at about the same time the hard-core fundamentalists took over the Sourthern Baptists. So beware of the Scouts, Erin, they reserve the right to kick out Catholics too.

The line in the Scout oath includes "duty to God".

I'd not worry about Catholics being excluded from Scouts - that's much more likely to happen to non-Christians, especially when the priest giving a benediction at a scout function ends the prayer in "In Jesus' name we pray, Amen."

REP -

If I claim that "the Natural Law proposes thus and such" it will not do to simply say "that is illig." Illig. arguments fall prey to alogical fallacy. If one asserts that this is the case, then the burden is the asserting party to identify the fallacy.

From what I can see, one could respond to the above assertion in the following ways:

(1) "I agree";

(2) "I disagree that the Natural Law proposes said thing." or

(3) "There is no Natural Law - that is a figment of the religious imagination." (Though it was held by pagan philosohers as well.)

However, one would need to support the above with an ARGUMENT. Otherwise, it is simply ASSERTION.

As for genetic risk, Robert Heinlein used that to make an interesting statement in a future where the percentages for any given trait are accurately calculated, and where "gene surgery" is common: consanguinity and incest have no genetic meaning; two completely, genetically unrelated people could be forbidden to combine their DNA and produce offspring because their children would be severely and usually fatally genetically damaged (I would like all readers to stipulate that Heinlein was not talking about eugenics, but ethics, and went into detail sufficient to appease anyone worried about such things), while two closely related people would be unrestricted upon a clean genetic report.

We are some decades or centuries from that sort of thing. In the meantime, laws against incest stand as is and for the reasons stated above.

eastcoastlady: "The line in the Scout oath includes "duty to God"."

Gives Buddhists some trouble, that.

"I'd not worry about Catholics being excluded from Scouts - that's much more likely to happen to non-Christians,..."

Understood. Just a play upon other hyberbolic claims made by some respondents.

************************
Franklin Evans (about incest): "As for genetic risk, Robert Heinlein used that to make an interesting statement in a future where the percentages for any given trait are accurately calculated, and where "gene surgery" is common.."

The reality is that genetically, incest is not all that 'risky' as long as you don't keep breeding back into the same line (A one shot deal). Now, in small communities where out-breeding was much less common, (which was the norm in the past and remains the same for a large number of humans living today), and where genetic diversity of the overall population was much less, it could present greater problems.

So, yes: Incest does significantly increase the risk of 'unhappy' genetics being expressed, but no, the chances of a two-headed baby are low.

anonymous poster,

"I have the same reaction to those who blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior."

I've never seen anyone here who believes an anti-gay person should "disengage" his/her religious beliefs. I have repeatedly said that they are welcome to believe what they wish to believe - but we want the exact same treatment. Apparently I, who was married in my Church, am supposed to disengage my religious beliefs.

You seem to have forgotten that many denominations do embrace equality and same-sex marriage. Shoul da United Church member be required to give up his/her beliefs? What about the Universalist/Unitarians? The Reformed Jews? The Conservative branch of Judaism? The Quakers? Etc.

"But for many religious people across many religious denominations ... the day-to-day practice of one's religion is an essential way of bringing meaning to such beliefs."

As it is for me. Thanx 4 your support.

"And while religious beliefs on homosexuality may seem the most familiar to us, there may be people with strongly held secular beliefs who feel just as strongly on the issue."

Again, no one has made a secular argument for treating gay citizens unequally before the law. Would you care to try?

Cleveland,

Quoting LieSite as a reference shows a paucity of integrity and truth. No one believes them, which is why they're called LieSite.

Jack,

I don't believe in "Natural Law". It is not something my religion teaches. I understand that Catholics do believe in it, and they are free to, but they are still not free to impose it on others who do not.

Ergo, your "argument" is irrelevant.

REP-

"I've never seen anyone here who..."

I was quoting from the activist attorney... I think I cited that and put quotation marks. I'm not sure why it was confusing to you.

REP -

"I am simply no longer going to bother addressing posts that raise the issues of incest and polygamy - they are not what is under discussion here, and aren't worth dignifying with a response."

Funny, I thought that was what the whole thread was about... Maybe you should reread it...

Rod said:

"I have not seen a satisfactory answer as to why, based on the court's finding that individual autonomy is the basis for extending full marriage rights to same-sex couples, polygamous marriages can be forbidden. Those who argue that gay marriage is a right -- which is something inalienable, that cannot be regulated by the law -- will find before too long that they have no firm moral grounds for rejecting polygamist claims."

Also, I should point out: the founders also accepted a version of natural law, though much different post "enlightenment" but it is there all the same...and that is the source of the "inalienable rights" language we are all so fond of...

Okay, time for logical consequences... Suddenly, let's say DROVES of folks come out of the closet and head for City Hall to marry a same-sex partner because more people were on the fence about their sexuality than we thought, and just waiting for this opportunity. Or maybe they are divorced and "into trying something new..." Suddenly, there develops a huge "market" for children for these couples. Adoption centers run out of healthy newborns and the medical profession rallies to artificially "supply" this demand. You see, it is NOT the same as heterosexual marriage! Yes, this technology already exists, but say demand increases...the medical profession becomes busy "filling orders" and finds it more profitable than curing diseases...a major social change, right there. Children becoming a commodity.

And yes, historically, marriage was a duty ("for better or for worse, for richer or poorer...) Now that you must be "happy," gays can join the rest of us in our high divorce rate!

Connie,

I have to agree with ecl here... I don't think most people want kids as this would impose on the "freedoms" they hold dear... Pursuit of happiness and all... That's why we have such a frightening low birthrate in blue states and Europe.

Interesting, if off topic a bit... I read an article where a sociologist argued that having kids actually creates Red State folks... Learning about self-sacrifice and all... So it is a bit of a chicken and egg question...

...please don't agree with me if you're going to take what I say and use it to support an argument or position with which I completely disagree.

-- Why not? I don't see why this is not fair.

It's pure posturing and personal assertion to state that birth rate is somehow related to "red" and "blue" states, or is somehow related to the idea of "self-sacrifice".

... waited several years ...

-- Waited is diff't from not doing... And yes, it can be prudent...

... pure posturing and personal assertion...

-- Wrong. There is plenty of evidence. Link below to the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?hp

There are some hard numbers in this document, page 14.

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2007.pdf

As for the chicken/egg study... I'll have to dig around for that one...

Benedict,

Points all well taken.

But I don't think it's in any way being selfish not to have children if that is what one wants.

I realize it's the exception, thank God, but just today, a terrible news story on TV - a little boy outside his house (no, not a slum) begging for food, and inside, his siblings, living in squalor.

Or my old Baptist high school contemporary having six children and living in poverty.

Why is having children the bottom line of a marriage? I adore my own kids, but I'm not going to have more just because I love them.

Having children for its own sake is just not right.

Connie,

"All Things Considered" hosts Robert Siegel and Melissa Block actually did ask the Chinese, or at least were there when one possible answer was forthcoming: couples who lost their only child in the earthquake were given immediate license to have another child without fear of the second-child fines. Those beyond childbearing, for whatever reason, will receive compensation, and as I recall an explicit reason was support during retirement.

Disagree and disapprove as you must, and you may find me right there with you, but your attempt to use China is invalid.

Jack,

"natural law is not a known by faith"

It isn't? Hmmm, then Marian Neudel above must be as confused as I am about it. ("The whole point of deriving a principle from "natural law" rather than, say, canon law, is that then you can claim it applies to everybody, rather than merely adherents of your own faith."

And you too, apparently, since you offered the following as a possible response:

"3) "There is no Natural Law - that is a figment of the religious imagination." (Though it was held by pagan philosohers as well.)"

Either it is "religious" or it isn't, but it certainly is no argument against same-sex marriage, especialy to those who do not abide by its tenets - whatever they are.

The point is how RELATIVE human emotion is. We can twist things around any way we want to.

Connie, I understand that you are trying to make a point, and I honestly enjoy your posts... but it is so very important to check facts before deciding to use an analogy. This always trips me up, and I think thrice before using analogies in any argument.

The Chinese law in question was an explicit attempt to balance population pressures (which were and are very real and measurable) with the very complex traditions around Chinese families. You will recall, I hope, much controversy over first-borns being girls, and the traditional notions around family name and male inheritance?

The current discussion around this law really has nothing to do with the earthquake aftermath. As it was explained to me (meaning: I have not read the law), it has always been part of that law that should the only child be killed or severely disabled, that no fines would be imposed on that couple having a second child. The report further said that there were plenty of families, mostly in rural areas, who simply paid the fines and continued beyond the first child.

We can twist things around any way we want to.

Yes, we can and do. Though I like to think well of myself, I can be guilty of that, too. In this case, though, I don't think that charge is valid.

In this case, it is selfish NOT to have more children.

Ridiculous.
Apples and oranges analogy to the original point of the column.
Pointless to discuss further.

Connie: "My original point was that gay couples will want children and must go outside their relationships to get them, and will there be enough to go around?"

For lesbian couples, this is no problem: The world is awash in excess sperm. As for having enough children to adopt? Gay couples shouldn't account for more than 1-3% of the total marriages. I don't think this will add much to the adoption load. Besides, some gays will have children from previous, heterosexual marriages.